Aviation West Charters Incorporated v. United Healthcare Insurance Company et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting United Healthcare Insurance Company's 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on any federal law claims. Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall terminate this case. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 11/10/14. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Aviation West Charters, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00338-PHX-NVW

United Healthcare Insurance Company,
et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is United Healthcare Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 36).
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must produce evidence and show there is no genuine
issue of material fact. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d
1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must show that there are genuine issues of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). On summary judgment, the nonmoving party’s
evidence is presumed true, and all inferences from the evidence are drawn in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of North America, 815
F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987); Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th
Cir. 2001).

1

But the evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. LRCiv 56.1(a), (b);

2

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Allegations in an unverified complaint are not admissible

3

evidence. Conclusory and speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is

4

insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and to defeat summary judgment. Thornhill

5

Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). “If a party fails to

6

properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion

7

of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for

8

purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. 56(e)(2).

9

II.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

10

Defendant United Healthcare Insurance Company (“United”) is the insurer and

11

administrator of the Renaud, Cook, Drury, Mesaros, PA Welfare Benefit Plan (“Plan”),

12

which is an employee-sponsored benefit and welfare plan. The Beneficiary, who is

13

identified in the Complaint as “Jane Doe,” is eligible to receive benefits under the Plan as

14

an “enrolled dependent.” Plaintiff Aviation West Charters, Inc. is not a member of

15

United’s network of contracted health care providers.

16

In January 2013, the Beneficiary went to Kauai for a vacation. On January 16,

17

2013, the Beneficiary requested approval of air transport. On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff

18

transported the Beneficiary and her family members from their hotel in Kauai to

19

Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn in Arizona via ground and private air transportation.

20

Plaintiff submitted post-service claims to United seeking payment of $682,510.00 for the

21

transportation services it provided.

22

On January 19, 2013, United sent the Beneficiary a letter, with a copy to Plaintiff,

23

stating that, based on the information submitted to United, the transportation services

24

were not eligible expenses under the Plan. On July 12 and 18, 2013, United made

25

payments to Plaintiff in the amounts of $374,328.81 and $187,413.11, respectively,

26

related to the transportation services. In December 2013, United issued five separate

27

Provider Explanation of Benefits statements to Plaintiff, informing Plaintiff that it was

28
-2 

1

recouping the amounts paid for the transportation services by reducing the amount of

2

funds that were otherwise payable to Plaintiff for other claims it had submitted to United.

3

The Plan includes the following provisions:

4

You may not assign your Benefits under the Policy to a non-Network
provider without our consent. When an assignment is not obtained, we will
send the reimbursement directly to you (the Subscriber) for you to
reimburse them upon receipt of their bill. We may, however, in our
discretion, pay a non-Network provider directly for services rendered to
you. In the case of any such assignment of Benefits or payment to a nonNetwork provider, we reserve the right to offset Benefits to be paid to the
provider by any amounts that the Provider owes us.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

When you assign your Benefits under the Policy to a non-Network provider
with our consent, and the non-Network provider submits a claim for
payment, you and the non-Network provider represent and warrant the
following:
•

The Covered Health Services were actually provided.

•

The Covered Health Services were medically appropriate.

On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, alleging subject matter
jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29
U.S.C. § 1132(e) and (f). The Complaint asks the Court to declare that Defendants
violated certain ERISA requirements, enjoin Defendants from continuing to pursue
recoupment efforts against Plaintiff related to the Beneficiary claims, order Defendants to
return to Plaintiff all monies recouped, and other relief.
On September 5, 2014, United moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
Plaintiff has no cause of action under ERISA and, further, Plaintiff did not exhaust
necessary administrative remedies. Plaintiff contends it may bring ERISA claims under
an assignment of benefits from the Beneficiary, even though United did not consent to an
assignment,

because

the

anti-assignment

provision

is

ambiguous,

therefore

unenforceable, and, even if enforceable, United waived its right to invoke the provision.

26
27
28
-3 

1

III.

ANALYSIS

2

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), a civil enforcement action may be brought only by a

3

plan participant, beneficiary, fiduciary, or the Secretary of Labor. A non-participant

4

health care provider cannot bring claims for benefits on its own behalf, but must do so

5

derivatively, relying on its patients’ assignments of their benefits claims.

6

Physical Therapy USA, Inc. v. United Healthcare of Arizona, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2014 WL

7

5651325, at *2 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2014); Davidowitz v. Delta Dental Plan, 946 F.2d 1476,

8

1477 (9th Cir. 1991) (health care provider with a valid assignment from a beneficiary

9

may bring a civil action for non-payment). But an ERISA plan may restrict assignments:

10

“Anti-assignment clauses in ERISA plans are valid and enforceable.” Spinedex, 2014

11

WL 5651325, at *10 (citing Davidowitz, 946 F.2d at 1481).

Spinedex

12

Plaintiff is not a plan participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary and therefore has no

13

cause of action under ERISA without an assignment. The Complaint alleges that the

14

Beneficiary assigned her healthcare benefits under the Plan to Plaintiff and appointed

15

Plaintiff as her authorized representative. It further alleges that Plaintiff is an assigned

16

“participant” and “beneficiary” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7) and (8) and entitled to

17

all of the Beneficiary’s rights under the Plan. However, Plaintiff has not offered any

18

evidence of the alleged assignment.

19

Even if the Beneficiary did attempt to assign her benefits and rights under the

20

Plan, the Plan states: “You may not assign your Benefits under the Policy to a non-

21

Network provider without our consent.” Plaintiff is a non-Network provider, and United

22

did not consent to an assignment. Any purported assignment without consent is invalid

23

for purposes of giving Plaintiff a federal cause of action under ERISA.

24

Plaintiff contends that the Plan’s anti-assignment provision cannot be enforced

25

because it is ambiguous. Plaintiff finds it confusing that the provision says if United does

26

not consent to an assignment, it will send payment to the beneficiary who can then pay

27

the non-Network provider, but it retains discretion to choose to pay the non-Network

28
-4 

1

provider directly. Plaintiff contends that United’s exercise of discretion to send payment

2

directly to a non-Network provider is the equivalent of consent to the assignment, but the

3

provision could mean that United has discretion to pay whomever it wants

4

notwithstanding the assignment prohibition. The first interpretation is contradicted by the

5

subsequent reference to assignment and direct payment as alternatives, not equivalents.

6

Moreover, interpreting the provision to mean that United’s exercise of discretion

7

overrules its denial of consent would be illogical.

8

assignment requires United’s consent and, without an assignment, United may choose to

9

pay the claim through the beneficiary or directly to the non-Network provider. See

10

Spinedex, 2014 WL 5651325, at *10 (construing a similar anti-assignment provision).

11

Thus, the anti-assignment provision is not ambiguous.

The provision states that any

12

Plaintiff also contends that United waived its right to enforce the anti-assignment

13

provision by making direct payment to Plaintiff and by communicating directly with

14

Plaintiff. The anti-enforcement provision expressly authorized United’s discretion to

15

make direct payment to Plaintiff. Regarding other actions claimed to be inconsistent with

16

intent to enforce the anti-assignment provision, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence of

17

United’s alleged actions constituting waiver.

18

response, the alleged actions appear to be communications regarding claims made by

19

Plaintiff, payments made to Plaintiff, and recoupment from Plaintiff, which likely would

20

not show that United dealt with Plaintiff as though it were “standing in the shoes” of the

21

Beneficiary. There is no evidence upon which to conclude that United waived its right to

22

enforce the anti-assignment provision.

As summarily described in Plaintiff’s

23

Plaintiff does not have a cause of action under ERISA because it is not a plan

24

participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary and does not have a valid assignment of benefits

25

from the Beneficiary under the Plan. This conclusion does not foreclose any state law

26

claim, such as one for unjust enrichment, for which the Court declines to exercise

27

supplemental jurisdiction. The Court declines to decide whether Plaintiff exhausted

28
-5 

1

administrative remedies required by ERISA because Plaintiff does not have a cause of

2

action under ERISA.

3
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that United Healthcare Insurance Company’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) is granted.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendants

6

and against Plaintiffs on any federal law claims. Any state law claims are dismissed

7

without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

8

terminate this case.

9

Dated this 10th day of November, 2014.

10
11
12

Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6 

The Clerk shall