PITTSBURGH - A Pennsylvania federal judge on April 19 granted a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case brought by a private, nonprofit college, two for-profit entities and the owners of those entities who are challenging the "birth control" mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Geneva College, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 12-207, W.D. Pa.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56087).
NEWARK, N.J. - A New Jersey federal judge on April 17 dismissed claims against four health care payers in a reimbursement dispute, saying that either the defendants were not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or were not proper parties; he left claims against seven other defendants, saying that the plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit (Sportscare of America v. Multiplan Inc., et al., No. 10-4414, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54947).
RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Court of Appeals on April 16 affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) ordering the Family Redirection Institute Inc. (FRI) to reimburse the state Medicaid program for payments made to FRI for services by unqualified mental health care professionals (Family at Redirection Institute Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, No. 1274-12-2, Va. App.; 2013 Va. App. LEXIS 116).
LAFAYETTE, La. - A Louisiana federal judge on April 11 granted summary judgment in favor of a health insurance company in a wrongful denial of benefits case, agreeing with the insurer that the plan excluded coverage for bariatric surgery and complications arising from the surgery (Amy Macip v. Louisiana Service & Indemnity Co., No. 10-1678, W.D. La.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 ruled that a health plan administrator's claim for reimbursement against a plan participant under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) based on an equitable lien by agreement is governed by the terms of the plan and is not subject to equitable limitations (U.S. Airways, Inc. v. James McCutchen, et al., No. 11-1285, U.S. Sup.).
CHICAGO - An Illinois federal judge on April 12 granted a defense motion to dismiss a Medicare dispute for lack of jurisdiction (Columbus Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 10-4317, N.D. Ill.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52774).
GREEN BAY, Wis. - A Wisconsin federal judge on April 10 held that a plaintiff in a health care payment determination case failed to join the beneficiary as a necessary party to the action (VHC Inc. as trustee for SBV Health Plan v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, No. 13-92, E.D. Wis.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51635).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by GlaxoSmithKine PLC (GSK), leaving stand a decision allowing a Medicare Advantage provider to seek reimbursement from GSK under Medicare law for the costs of treating insurance customers who were injured by GSK's Avandia diabetes drug (GlaxoSmithKline, et al. v. Humana Medical Plans, et al., No. 12-690, U.S. Sup.).
SEATTLE - A health plan administrator did not breach its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to modify its coverage certificates to reflect a court order that it provide mental health treatment because the administrator informed its members of the changes to its coverages of neurodevelopmental therapy mandated by the court's order, a federal judge in Washington ruled April 8 (Z.D., et al. v. Group Health Cooperative, et al., No. 2:11-cv-01119, W.D. Wash.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50402).
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Tennessee federal judge on April 5 dismissed a qui tam action brought by a state resident who accused local medical clinics of offering illegal inducements to Medicare beneficiaries to secure patronage, saying that the relator obtained his information from public records (United States of America, ex rel. Marc Osheroff v. HealthSpring Inc., et al., No. 10-1015, M.D. Tenn.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49526).
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma federal judge remanded to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services a Medicare reimbursement case, finding that an appeals board erred in determining that a contractor administering the program established the reimbursement codes at issue (Oklahoma Procure Management v. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the United States department of Health and Human Services, No. 12-680, W.D. Okla.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48829).
BISMARCK, N.D. - The North Dakota Supreme Court on April 4 affirmed summary judgment in favor of health care providers in a suit in which plaintiffs were seeking reimbursement for expenses and liabilities incurred in pursuing a federal court action to get health insurance companies to pay for medical services provided by the hospitals (Arthur M. Hayden, et al. v. Medcenter One Inc., et al., No. 20120337, N.D. Sup.; 2013 N.D. LEXIS 47).
SAN FRANCISCO - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 4 affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of two federally funded health care clinics' actions alleging that the California Department of Health Care Services incorrectly calculated payments for Medicaid-covered pharmacy services provided to "dual-eligible" Medicare beneficiaries who also receive Medicaid (North East Medical Services Inc., et al. v. State of California, et al., Nos. 11-16795, 11-16796, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6808).
LAFAYETTE, La. - A Louisiana federal judge on April 4 granted a motion to remand in a class action health care reimbursement case, saying that one of the defendants was not fraudulently joined and that the plaintiffs met an exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (Opelousas General Trust Authority v. Multiplan Inc., et al., No. 12-1830, W.D. La.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49824).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 3 partially granted a motion to dismiss a federal and New York state False Claims Act (FCA) suit against Americare Inc. and partially denied the motion, saying that the plaintiff was able to sufficiently assert that the corporate defendants may have altered medical records to justify unnecessary home health services under Medicare (United States of America, ex rel. Patricia Mooney, v. Americare Inc., et al., No. 06cv1806, E.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48398).
LEXINGTON, Ky. - A Kentucky federal judge on March 28 allowed plaintiffs to amend a complaint to add a defendant in a Medicaid waiver dispute (Appalachian Regional Healthcare, et al. v. Coventry Health and Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 12-114, E.D. Ky.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44394).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In reconsidering a previous decision, a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on March 29 granted a motion for injunction pending appeal in a case in which a secular, for-profit food company and the company owners are challenging the implementation of a mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aimed at providing free preventive services to women, including those for birth control (Francis A. Gilardi, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 13-5069, D.C. Cir.).
FORT MYERS, Fla. - A Florida federal judge on March 29 denied a motion to dismiss a challenge to the birth control mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe (Ave Maria University v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 12-88, M.D. Fla.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45685).
DETROIT - A Michigan federal judge on March 22 denied an emergency motion for a temporary injunction brought by a natural foods company and its owner, who are seeking to halt the implementation of the "birth control mandate" contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Eden Foods Inc., et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 13-11229, E. D. Mich.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40768).
LOS ANGELES - In an unpublished opinion, a California appeals panel on March 21 affirmed summary judgment in favor of a health insurer in a premium dispute case, saying there was no showing that the defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct (Richard Feder v. Blue Cross of California, No. B239534, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8; 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2076).
AIKEN, S.C. - A South Carolina federal judge on March 22 affirmed a ruling by a bankruptcy judge that the withholding of post-petition Medicare reimbursement claims to recoup pre-petition Medicare reimbursement overpayments does not violate the Chapter 7 discharge injunction (In re: Gary T. Fischbach, Debtor, v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, et al., No. 12-513, D. S.C.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39855).
DETROIT - Following the Michigan Legislature's passage of bills prohibiting the use of "most favored nation" (MFN) clauses, the United States, Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan on March 25 filed a joint motion to dismiss allegations that Blue Cross violated federal and state antitrust laws by including such clauses in its contracts with hospitals in Michigan (United States of America and the State of Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-14155, E.D. Mich.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 declined to review an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a welfare benefit plan may not enforce its subrogation provision as an implied contract or in equity under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against a law firm that acknowledged the validity of the provision during its representation of a plan beneficiary in a civil lawsuit but that did not agree to be bound by the provision(Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Industries, Inc. Health Care Plan and Trust v. Sean Goding, et al., No. 12-982, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on March 21 denied a plaintiff's motion to remand her denial of health care benefits case to state court, holding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempted her claims (S.M. v. Oxford Health Plans (NY) Inc., et al., No. 12-4679, S.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40408).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 heard oral arguments to address whether, in a dispute over a health insurer's reimbursement of physicians' claim, an arbitrator acted within his authority in determining that the dispute could proceed as a class arbitration Oxford Health Plans LLC v. John Ivan Sutter, M.D., No. 12-135, U.S. Sup.).