Arnold v. Blue Shield of California
Filing
27
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING REFERRAL OR SANCTION OF ADAM PINES Show Cause Response due by 12/6/2012.. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 26, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KENNETH ARNOLD,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 12-02115 WHA
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING REFERRAL OR
SANCTION OF ADAM PINES
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
/
In a November 15 submission, defendant’s counsel Adam Pines represented to the Court
17
that “the practice [in ERISA disputes] of soliciting input from third-party reviewers that are
18
identified by training and qualifications, but not by name, is . . . regularly approved by the
19
courts” (Dkt. No. 23). The Court has reviewed the case authority cited by defendant’s counsel
20
for this proposition and concludes these cases hold the opposite. To wit: that the practice of
21
failing to identify third-party reviewers by name violates ERISA. Simonia v. Glendale
22
Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 378 Fed. App’x 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2010) (assuming without
23
deciding that the failure to identify a medical reviewer violates ERISA); Lukas v. United
24
Behavioral Health, No. 09-2423, 2011 WL 1459157, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011) (“The
25
Plan Administrator did not provide the name of the physician to plaintiffs. This resulted in a
26
violation of ERISA procedures.”); Gaines v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 09-1762, 2010
27
WL 1759579, at *7 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2010) (ERISA’s plain language compels an administrator
28
to identify a medical consultant upon plaintiff’s request).
1
It appears that defendant’s counsel Adam Pines has violated California Rule of
2
Professional Conduct 5-200, which states that a member of the bar “[s]hall not seek to mislead
3
the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The Court
4
hereby issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why a referral or other sanction should not be
5
imposed upon Adam Pines for this conduct. Adam Pines shall respond to this order by
6
DECEMBER 6 AT NOON.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: November 26, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?