Lacy Atzin et al v. Anthem, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT 113 AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 111 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Court APPROVES the settlement. First, the Court CONDITIONALLY GRANTS the Motion fo r Final Approval and approves of the key relief, an injunction directing Anthem to reprocess the claims of the class under the new agreed-upon medical necessity criteria, with the grant conditioned on the parties providing one more round of post-appr oval notice to the class as detailed below. (ECF No. 113.) The Court makes the following findings in connection with settlement approval: (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS RE FINDINGS). Within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order, the parties sh all file a declaration confirming that the class has been provided with post-approval notice as discussed herein and at the final approval hearing. Moreover, by the same date, the parties shall file a Proposed Judgment that omits detailed findings. S ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), 58(a). Upon receipt of these documents, the final approval motion shall, with no further notice or order from the Court, be deemed fully granted as provided herein, and the Court will issue a judgment of dismissal. Moreover, The Court substantially GRANTS the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards. (ECF No. 111.) Specifically, the Court AWARDS: attorneys fees in the amount of $850,00.00; costs in the amount of $36,833.99; and incentive payments in the amount of $10,000.00 for each of the two named Plaintiffs. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

LACY ATZIN and MARK ANDERSEN,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTHEM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case № 2:17-cv-06816-ODW (PLAx)
ORDER CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT [113] AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES [111]

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiffs Lacy Atzin and Mark Andersen, individually and on behalf of two

20

subclasses of insureds, bring this case under the Employee Retirement Income Security

21

Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) to require their insurer, Defendants Anthem, Inc. and Anthem

22

UM Services (together, “Anthem”), to reprocess previously denied claims under new

23

medical necessity criteria. On May 6, 2020, the Court certified Andersen’s subclass

24

pursuant to the parties’ agreement. (Order Granting Foot/Ankle Class Certification,

25

ECF No. 63.) On April 22, 2022, the Court granted conditional preliminary approval

26

of the parties’ class action settlement, including conditional certification of Atzin’s

27

subclass, (Order Cond. Granting Prelim. Approval, ECF No. 105), and then, on May 9,

28

1

2022, the Court granted preliminary approval in full, (Order Granting Prelim. Approval,

2

ECF No. 109).

3

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (Fee Mot., ECF

4

No. 111), and on July 22, 2022, they filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

5

Settlement, (Final Approval Mot., ECF No. 113). Defendants do not oppose, and no

6

class member objects to, either Motion. (See Suppl. Decl. Michael Heuring ¶ 3, ECF

7

No. 116.) On August 29, 2022, the Court held a final approval hearing and took the

8

matter under submission. For the following reasons, the Court CONDITIONALLY

9

GRANTS final settlement approval and substantially GRANTS the fee motion.
II.

10

BACKGROUND

11

Anthem provides and administers health benefit plans, and Atzin and Andersen

12

are participants in Anthem plans. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 1.) Anthem denied Atzin

13

and Andersen benefits by denying reimbursement for a microprocessor-controlled

14

prosthesis. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Under the terms of the plans, Anthem denies coverage for treatments that are not

15
16

“medically necessary” or are “investigational.”

(Id. ¶¶ 19–20.)

Anthem utilizes

17

coverage guidelines to assist it in determining whether one of these two reasons supports

18

denial of coverage. (Id. ¶ 16.) One such coverage guideline is OR-PR.00003, Anthem’s

19

medical policy for microprocessor-controlled lower limb prostheses. (Id. ¶ 21.)

20

A.

Andersen and the Foot/Ankle Subclass

21

Andersen sought reimbursement from Anthem for the use of a microprocessor

22

prosthesis for his foot and ankle. The OR-PR.00003 guideline sets forth Anthem’s prior

23

blanket policy of denying all requests for microprocessor-controlled foot-ankle

24

prostheses on the basis that they are investigational. (Compl. ¶¶ 23–24.) Pursuant to

25

this policy, Anthem denied Andersen benefits.

26

“Foot/Ankle Subclass,” that is, the class of Anthem health plan participants who sought

27

benefits in connection with a foot/ankle microprocessor prosthesis and whose claim or

28

request Anthem denied during the applicable limitations period. (See id. ¶ 37.) This

2

Andersen sued on behalf of the

1

subclass has eighty-four members. (Prelim. Approval Mot. Decl. Scott Hicks (“Hicks

2

Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 97-3.)
On May 6, 2020, the Court certified this subclass under Federal Rule of Civil

3
4

Procedure (“Rule”) 23(b)(2). (Order Granting Foot/Ankle Class Certification 9.)

5

B.

Atzin and the Knee Subclass

6

Atzin sought coverage from Anthem for the use of a microprocessor prosthesis

7

for her knee. The OR-PR.00003 guideline sets forth four criteria Anthem previously

8

used to determine whether a microprocessor-controlled prosthesis for the knee was

9

“medically necessary” for any given claimant. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Under these criteria,

10

Anthem’s policies covered a microprocessor knee prosthesis only if the claimant met

11

the following four criteria:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1. Individual has adequate cardiovascular reserve and cognitive learning
ability to master the higher level technology and to allow for faster than
normal walking speed; and
2. Individual has demonstrated the ability to ambulate faster than their
baseline rate using a standard swing and stance lower extremity prosthesis;
and
3. Individual has a documented need for daily long distance ambulation
(for example, greater than 400 yards) at variable rates. (In other words, use
within the home or for basic community ambulation is not sufficient to
justify the computerized limb over standard limb applications); and
4. Individual has a demonstrated need for regular ambulation on uneven
terrain or regular use on stairs. Use of limb for limited stair climbing in the
home or place of employment is not sufficient to justify the computerized
limb over standard limb applications.

25

(See id.; Fee Mot. 3 (referring to this policy as “Former Medical Policy”).) Pursuant to

26

these criteria, Anthem denied Atzin coverage for a microprocessor knee prosthesis.

27

Atzin brought suit on behalf of the “Knee Subclass,” defined as the class of Anthem

28

health plan participants who sought benefits in connection with a knee microprocessor

3

1

prosthesis and whose claims or requests Anthem denied during the applicable time

2

period. (See Compl. ¶ 37.) This subclass has 101 members. (Hicks Decl. ¶ 5.)

3

The Knee Subclass was certified for purposes of settlement as of May 9, 2022,

4

the date the Court finalized and affirmed its granting of the Motion for Preliminary

5

Approval of Class Action Settlement. (Order Cond. Granting Prelim. Approval 13; see

6

Order Granting Prelim. Approval.)

7

C.

Settlement and Release

8

Under the terms of the parties’ settlement, Anthem agreed to reprocess the claims

9

of each class member under new, modified medical necessity criteria. The new

10

proposed criteria, which will be used in reprocessing the claims of both subclasses, are

11

as follows:

12

1. Individual has adequate cardiovascular reserve and cognitive learning
ability to master the higher level technology; and

13
14

2. Individual has a functional K-Level 3 or above; and

15

3. The provider has documented that there is a reasonable likelihood of
better mobility or stability with the device instead of a mechanical [knee
or foot-ankle] prosthesis; and

16
17
18

4. There is documented need for ambulation in situations where the device
will provide benefit (for example, regular need to ascend/descend stairs,
traverse uneven surfaces or ambulate for long distances [generally
400 yards or greater cumulatively]).1

19
20
21
22

(Mot. Prelim. Approval 7 (referring to this policy as “Current Medical Policy”).) To

23

avail themselves of the benefits of this settlement, class members must submit new

24

claims to Anthem; Anthem will not automatically reprocess old claims.

25

The settlement provides that, in exchange for the opportunity to have Anthem

26

reprocess their claims under the new criteria, class members will release any and all

27
28

1

On May 20, 2021, Anthem began using these new criteria for all new foot/ankle and knee
microprocessor prosthesis claimants. (Mot. Prelim. Approval 7.)
4

1

claims against Anthem regarding (1) “any denial of microprocessor-controlled knee

2

prostheses under ERISA-governed plans,” (2) “any denial of microprocessor-controlled

3

foot-ankle prostheses under ERISA-governed plans,” and (3) “the appropriateness of

4

the Former Medical Policy, the Revised Former Medical Policy and/or the Current

5

Medical Policy including, but not limited to, the criteria in those policies.” (Decl.

6

Robert S. Gianelli Ex. 1 (“Settlement Agreement”) 6–7, ECF No. 97-1.)

7

In addition to agreeing to reprocess class members’ resubmitted claims pursuant

8

to the Current Medical Policy, Anthem agreed to pay up to $850,000 in attorneys’ fees

9

and $36,833.99 in costs, and not to oppose Plaintiffs’ request for Court approval of these

10

amounts. (Id. at 11.)

11

D.

Notice and Response; Final Approval Motion

12

The Settlement Administrator mailed notice of the settlement to all class

13

members, and, pursuant to the Court’s order, the Settlement Administrator additionally

14

sent an email to the seventy class members for whom Anthem had an email address on

15

file. While nine of the emails were returned undeliverable, none of the mailed notices

16

were returned undeliverable. (Final Approval Mot. 3–4.)

17

No class members have objected to the settlement. (Final Approval Mot. 3;

18

Suppl. Decl. Michael J. Heuring ¶ 3 (confirming that, as of July 28, 2022, the deadline

19

for class members to object, the settlement administrator received zero objections to the

20

settlement).)

21

Plaintiffs now seek final approval of this settlement. (Final Approval Mot. 1.)

22

Moreover, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiffs seek approval of an

23

award of $850,000 in attorneys’ fees, $36,833.99 in costs, and a $15,000 incentive

24

award for each of the two named Plaintiffs. (Fee Mot. 2.)
III.

25
26
27

DISCUSSION

The Court first considers the final approval motion before turning to the fee
motion.

28

5

1

A.

Motion for Final Settlement Approval

2

As explained below, class certification remains appropriate, and the settlement is

3

fair, adequate, and reasonable. Moreover, while pre-approval notice to the class was

4

sufficient, given the unique nature of this case, the Court will require the parties to

5

provide the class with an additional round of post-approval notice.

6

1.

7

In the Order Conditionally Granting Preliminary Approval, the Court explained

8

why this ERISA claims reprocessing suit is appropriate for Rule 23(b)(2) certification.

9

(See Order Cond. Granting Prelim. Approval 11–12.) Nothing has changed to disturb

10

Class Certification

that conclusion, and class certification remains appropriate.

11

2.

Fairness of Settlement Terms

12

In determining whether a proposed class action settlement is “fair, reasonable,

13

and adequate,” courts may consider some or all of the following factors: “(1) the

14

strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of

15

further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial; (4) the

16

amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of

17

the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a

18

governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed

19

settlement.” See Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 963 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

In the Order Conditionally Granting Preliminary Approval, the Court explained

21

that, due to the unique nature of claims reprocessing suits and the typicality problem

22

that can arise when proceeding with such litigation by representation, it was especially

23

incumbent upon the Court to confirm that the class settlement is fair—that is, to confirm

24

that the new medical necessity criteria are an accurate and dependable way of sorting

25

claimants into those for whom a microprocessor prosthesis is medically necessary and

26

those for whom it is not. (Order Cond. Granting Prelim. Approval 9–11.) To this end,

27

the Court ordered Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. John Michael, C.P.O., to file additional

28

6

1

materials supporting Plaintiffs’ claim that the new criteria represent a meaningful

2

change from the old criteria and thereby represent a good result for the class. (Id. at 18.)

3

Dr. Michael amply addresses the Court’s prior concerns. (Decl. John Michael

4

ISO Final Approval, ECF No. 110.) First, Dr. Michael explains and shows that

5

Anthem’s new medical necessity criteria are now functionally the same as the medical

6

necessity criteria that Medicare, United, Aetna, and CIGNA use in handling lower limb

7

microprocessor prosthesis claims. That Anthem’s new criteria align with industry

8

standards is very strong evidence that this settlement is a very good result for the class.

9

Dr. Michael also explains that Anthem’s prior medical necessity criteria for knee

10

prostheses were highly restrictive and that the new criteria represent a significant

11

loosening of those restrictions. As one example, whereas the prior criteria covered only

12

those amputees who could demonstrate that the microprocessor knee prosthesis helped

13

them walk faster than normal, the new criteria contain no special speed requirement

14

whatsoever. And of course, microprocessor foot/ankle prostheses were previously

15

“investigational”—that is, not covered at all—and so the new criteria, which are meant

16

to provide coverage for a substantial number of amputees, are undeniably a major shift.

17

That the settlement is fundamentally a very good result for the class is the lion’s

18

share of the analysis. The other reasonableness factors provide additional support for

19

finding the settlement to be reasonable, or are either neutral or inapplicable. For these

20

reasons, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

21

See Demaria v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., No. 2:11-cv-07298 (WJM), 2016 WL

22

6089713, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2016) (finding class action claims reprocessing

23

settlement to be reasonable and granting final settlement approval).

24

3.

Notice to Government Officials

25

Under section 1715(b) of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), a

26

settling defendant must “serve upon the appropriate State official of each State in which

27

a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official” a specified group of

28

documents describing the settlement. Pursuant to § 1715(d), final approval cannot be

7

1

issued earlier than ninety days after notice is given under § 1715(b). Anthem served

2

the necessary documents upon the appropriate officials on October 29, 2021, and well

3

over ninety days have passed since that date. (Decl. Michael Heuring ¶¶ 5–6, ECF

4

No. 113-1.) The Court therefore finds that Anthem is in compliance with 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1715.

6

4.

Pre-Approval Notice

7

“Rule 23(e) requires that ‘notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise [of a

8

class action] shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court

9

directs.’” In re Toys R Us-Del., Inc.—Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act

10

(FACTA) Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 448 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)).

11

“[T]he class must be notified of a proposed settlement in a manner that does not

12

systematically leave any group without notice.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv.

13

Comm’n of City & Cty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted).

14

Here, while nine of the emails the Settlement Administrator sent to the class were

15

returned undeliverable, none of the notices the Settlement Administrator sent by postal

16

mail were returned undeliverable. (Final Approval Mot. 3–4.) This provides sufficient

17

indication that all class members have received proper notice of this settlement.

18

As to the contents of the notice, “[n]otice is satisfactory if it ‘generally describes

19

the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to

20

investigate and to come forward and be heard.’” Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 962 (quoting

21

Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). Here, the Court

22

has already carefully scrutinized the notice and found it to be sufficient. (See Order

23

Cond. Granting Prelim. Approval 21.)

24

5.

Post-Settlement Notice

25

In an ordinary class action for money damages, after final approval, the defendant

26

transmits the funds to the settlement administrator, who then sends each class member

27

a payment, typically via check or direct deposit. This payment also functions as final

28

notice to the class members that the settlement has been approved and executed. See,

8

1

e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 328 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Here,

2

by contrast, because the remedy is an injunction rather than money damages, class

3

members will receive no such checks. Accordingly, at the final approval hearing, the

4

Court raised its concern about post-approval notice, and specifically whether the class

5

members will understand that they need to submit a new claim to Anthem in order to

6

avail themselves of the relief provided by this lawsuit. At the final approval hearing,

7

Plaintiffs’ attorneys confirmed their intention to provide class members with post-

8

approval notice to this effect.

9

In accordance with these observations and counsel’s representations, the Court

10

conditionally grants the final approval motion, with instructions to the parties to file a

11

declaration confirming that the class received post-approval notice, as provided in the

12

Conclusion section of this Order. Upon receipt of this declaration, the Court will issue

13

a judgment of dismissal.

14

B.

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs & Expenses, and Incentive Awards

15

Plaintiffs move for approval of $850,000 in attorneys’ fees, $36,833.99 in costs

16

and expenses, and $30,000 in incentive awards ($15,000 x two named Plaintiffs). (Fee

17

Mot. 2.)

18

1.

19

The parties have agreed to $850,000 in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs submit that their

20

lodestar in this case is $882,740.00, based on 1,098.5 hours of work, (id. at 12), billed

21

at rates of $900/hour (for Robert S. Gianelli), $700/hour (for Joshua S. Davis), and

22

$675/hour (for Adrian J. Barrio), (id. at 14).

Attorneys’ Fees

23

Importantly, this is not a common-fund case where attorneys’ fees are being

24

deducted from a single undifferentiated settlement pool that the defendant has agreed

25

to fund. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.

26

2011). In those types of cases, because there is some inverse relationship between the

27

attorney fee award and the amount that goes to class members, it is particularly

28

incumbent upon the Court not to merely capitulate to an attorney fee request, but instead

9

1

to scrutinize both the billing records and the hourly rates carefully to ensure that class

2

counsel is not unfairly benefitting at the expense of class members. This concern is not

3

present here, as this is not a case where “[p]laintiffs’ counsel, otherwise a fiduciary for

4

the class, . . . become[s] a claimant against the fund created for the benefit of the class.”

5

In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2010). Instead,

6

in cases such as this where the defendant pays the attorneys directly and independent of

7

any other monetary obligation, “the Court’s fiduciary role in overseeing the award is

8

greatly reduced” because “there is no conflict of interest between attorneys and class

9

members.” McBean v. City of New York, 233 F.R.D. 377, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Here,

10

as a result of the litigation, and completely irrespective of the amount of attorneys’ fees

11

Anthem pays or has agreed to pay, every class member has the opportunity to get their

12

claim reprocessed, and Anthem is bound by both ERISA and general contract law to

13

reprocess each of these claims appropriately.

14

Therefore, in this case, the Court conducts only a cursory review of the attorney

15

fee request and notes that it appears to be the product of genuine arm’s-length

16

negotiation. The Court grants attorneys’ fees as requested.2

17

2.

Costs & Expenses

18

Next, Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve an award of $36,833.99 in costs and

19

expenses. (Fee Mot. 15–16.) As with the attorneys’ fees, this is an amount Anthem

20

agreed to pay as part of the settlement.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court makes this finding without making any explicit finding regarding the reasonableness of
any of the requested hourly rates. Rule 23 does not state that courts approving class action settlements
must make reasonableness findings on attorney fee awards in all cases; instead, it states specifically
that the court may approve a binding proposal “only after . . . finding that it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate after considering whether . . . the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into
account . . . the terms of any proposed award of attorneys’ fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii). In
other words, the Court need not concern itself with the reasonableness of the dollar amount of an
attorney fee award when the amount of the award would have no effect on the relief for the class.
That is the case here. Thus, the Court approves the attorney fee award as the product of the parties’
agreement and based on the fact that fees are not coming from a common fund. These facts, rather
than any of the lodestar figures, are what make the attorney fee request reasonable.
10

1

Plaintiffs’ attorneys declare that the costs actually incurred in this case total

2

$45,329.45. (Decl. Joshua Davis (“Davis Decl.”) ¶ 29, ECF No. 111-1; Decl. Conal

3

Doyle (“Doyle Decl.”) ¶ 14, ECF No. 111-2.) Plaintiffs’ attorneys explain in general

4

terms the various categories of costs and expenses they incurred over the course of this

5

suit, but they do not submit detailed cost and expense records. (Davis Decl. ¶¶ 29–31;

6

Doyle Decl. ¶ 14.) Nevertheless, given that Anthem has agreed to costs and expenses

7

in this amount and that these amounts will not diminish any common fund, costs and

8

expenses in this matter should be treated the same way as attorneys’ fees. See Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 23(h) (“In a certified class action, the court may award . . . nontaxable costs that

10

are authorized by . . . the parties’ agreement.”). The parties have agreed to the claimed

11

costs, and given the scope and length of the lawsuit, nothing about the claimed costs is

12

patently unreasonable. The Court grants costs as requested.

13

3.

Incentive Payments

14

Finally, Atzin and Andersen request an incentive payment of $15,000 each.

15

“Incentive awards typically range from $2,000 to $10,000,” and “[h]igher awards are

16

sometimes given in cases involving much larger settlement amounts.” Bellinghausen

17

v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 267 (N.D. Cal. 2015). However, “[g]enerally, in

18

the Ninth Circuit, a $5,000 incentive award is presumed reasonable.” Bravo v. Gale

19

Triangle, Inc., No. CV 16-03347 BRO (GJSx), 2017 WL 708766, at *19 (C.D. Cal.

20

Feb. 16, 2017) (citing Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL

21

381202, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012)). Furthermore, when there is a “significant

22

disparity” between the incentive award and the average class member recovery, the

23

incentive award is unreasonable unless sufficiently justified. See Aguirre v. DirecTV,

24

LLC, No. CV 16-06836 SJO (JPRx), 2017 WL 6888493, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2017)

25

(finding plaintiff provided inadequate justifications for an incentive award of $10,000

26

when the average recovery was $1,350).

27

In this case, an incentive payment of $10,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs

28

is appropriate. While higher than the average incentive award in the Ninth Circuit,

11

1

$10,000 is within the range of typical. Bellinghausen, 306 F.R.D. at 267. Moreover,

2

the relief Atzin and Andersen are receiving in this case is the exact same relief every

3

other class member is receiving: the opportunity to get a previously denied claim

4

reprocessed. There is a possibility that, even after five-plus years of litigation and much

5

work with their attorneys to see this matter to its conclusion, Atzin and Andersen will

6

resubmit their claims only to see Anthem again deny those claims for some different

7

reason. A $10,000 incentive payment would function as a partial cushion against the

8

expense of the prosthesis in case Anthem denies Atzin’s and Andersen’s claims a second

9

time. Additionally, as with attorneys’ fees, the incentive payments are not coming out

10

of any sort of class fund. All class members receive the exact same opportunity to get

11

their claims reprocessed, regardless of how big an incentive award Anthem might pay

12

Atzin and Andersen. The Court therefore awards incentive payments of $10,000 each

13

to Atzin and Andersen.
IV.

14
15

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Court APPROVES the settlement.

First, the Court

16

CONDITIONALLY GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval and approves of the key

17

relief, an injunction directing Anthem to reprocess the claims of the class under the new

18

agreed-upon medical necessity criteria, with the grant conditioned on the parties

19

providing one more round of post-approval notice to the class as detailed below. (ECF

20

No. 113.) The Court makes the following findings in connection with settlement

21

approval:

22
23
24
25
26

 The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is the result of arm’s-length
negotiation by the parties.
 The class and subclasses as defined in the Settlement Agreement are certified for
settlement purposes.
 Class counsel provided pre-approval notice to class members (“Notice”) in

27

accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order.

28

(1) constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (2) was

12

The Notice

1

reasonably calculated to apprise class members of the pendency of the litigation,

2

their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and

3

their right to appear at the final approval hearing; and (3) met the applicable

4

requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and constitutional due

5

process.
 Class counsel and Plaintiffs adequately represented the class for purposes of

6

entering into and implementing the Settlement.

7
8

 The release of claims set forth in paragraphs 13(q) and 23–24 of the Settlement

9

Agreement is effective as of the date of this Final Order and forever discharges

10

the Released Parties from any claims or liabilities arising from or related to the

11

Released Claims.

12

 Without affecting the finality of this Order for purposes of appeal, the Court shall

13

retain jurisdiction as to all matters relating to administration, consummation,

14

enforcement, and interpretation of the settlement and this Order.
 The Parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of administration,

15
16

construction, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement.

17

Within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a

18

declaration confirming that the class has been provided with post-approval notice as

19

discussed herein and at the final approval hearing. Moreover, by the same date, the

20

parties shall file a Proposed Judgment that omits detailed findings. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

54(a), 58(a). Upon receipt of these documents, the final approval motion shall, with no

22

further notice or order from the Court, be deemed fully granted as provided herein, and

23

the Court will issue a judgment of dismissal.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

13

1
2

Moreover, The Court substantially GRANTS the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Awards. (ECF No. 111.) Specifically, the Court AWARDS:

3

 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $850,000;

4

 costs in the amount of $36,833.99; and

5

 incentive payments in the amount of $10,000 for each of the two named Plaintiffs.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

September 14, 2022

10
11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

14