F. ovo Aetna
Filing
83
ORDER for Supplemental Briefing re 45 MOTION to Certify Class . Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 9/10/2013. (sclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
DENNIS F., CAROL F., GRACE F.,
MARK P., KESTREL P., MAURA T.,
EDWARD T., EMILY T., ED L., and
MINDY L.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE,
16
Defendant.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-cv-02819-SC
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING RE: CLASS
CERTIFICATION
18
19
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for class
20
certification.
The motion is essentially predicated on the
21
allegation that Defendant adopted an erroneous policy of tabulating
22
patients' LOCAT scores.
23
the way in which Defendant tabulated the total LOCAT Scores for
24
Dimension III and Dimension V.
25
Defendant assigned a score of either "0" or "1," depending on
26
whether a patient had a score of "3" or greater in any sub-
27
dimension.
28
III should be equivalent to the highest sub-dimension score in that
Specifically, Plaintiffs take issue with
For each of these dimensions,
Plaintiffs assert that the total score for Dimension
1
dimension.
2
should be tabulated in the same way.
3
assert that Defendant should have scored Dimension V by taking the
4
sum of the scores of Dimension V's three sub-dimensions.
5
of the class is Defendant's alleged failure to correctly tabulate
6
LOCAT scores, not Defendant's alleged errors in evaluating medical
7
records.
8
reserved the right to argue that Defendant improperly evaluated
9
their conditions.
United States District Court
Alternatively, Plaintiffs
The focus
However, if the class is not certified, Plaintiffs have
While the Court is not prepared to render a judgment on the
10
For the Northern District of California
Plaintiffs assert that the total score for Dimension V
11
merits of Plaintiffs' class claims at this time, the Court is
12
concerned with Plaintiffs' interpretation of the LOCAT Scoring
13
Form.
14
that "24" is the highest LOCAT score a patient can possibly
15
receive.
16
inpatient care if that patient receives a score of "11-24").
17
Defendant's interpretation of the LOCAT Scoring Form also yields a
18
possible high score of "24" -- a patient could receive high scores
19
of "20," "1," "1," "1," and "1" for Dimensions I through V,
20
respectively.
21
score of "42" -- a patient could receive high scores of "20," "1,"
22
"5," "1," and "15" for Dimensions I through V, respectively.1
23
Thus, Plaintiffs' interpretation of the LOCAT Scoring Form could
The LOCAT Scoring Forms submitted by Plaintiffs indicate
See Mot. Ex. 7 (indicating that a patient may qualify for
However, Plaintiff's interpretation yields a high
24
25
26
27
28
1
A patient could receive a total Dimension V score of "15" (and
thus a total LOCAT score of "42") if the sub-dimensions scores for
Dimension V are added together. Alternatively, if the total score
for Dimension V is equivalent to the highest sub-dimension score,
with "5" being the highest possible sub-dimension score, a patient
could receive a total LOCAT score as high as "32."
2
1
yield a LOCAT score which is almost double the highest possible
2
score identified by the form itself.
3
Given this inconsistency, it is unclear if Plaintiffs can
4
prevail on class claims predicated on their interpretation of the
5
LOCAT Scoring Form.
6
rule on the merits of Plaintiffs' class claims, determination of a
7
motion for class certificate "generally involves considerations
8
that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the
9
plaintiff's cause of action."
While neither party has asked the Court to
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
S. Ct. 2541, 2552 (2011).
11
the possibility of certifying a class that has little chance of
12
succeeding on the merits, especially since Plaintiffs might have a
13
better chance of success if they merely challenged Defendant's
14
individual decisions concerning the medical necessity of RTC care,
15
claims which Plaintiffs have waived by proceeding as a class
16
action.
17
Moreover, the Court is concerned about
Accordingly, the Court requests supplemental briefing on (i)
18
whether the LOCAT Scoring Forms or any of the other evidence before
19
the Court support Plaintiffs' interpretation of the LOCAT Scoring
20
Forms, (ii) and how the concerns expressed above might affect
21
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
22
requests supplemental briefing on whether any Aetna members have
23
been granted coverage for RTC care despite having a LOCAT Score
24
that, according to the LOCAT Scoring Form, was too low to justify
25
that level of care.
26
provide a more exact definition of their proposed class that
27
includes, time limitations, e.g., "Subclass 1 is comprised of those
The Court also
Finally, the Court requests that Plaintiffs
28
3
1
Aetna participants and beneficiaries who submitted claims any time
2
after January 1, 2008 . . . ."
2
The parties shall submit their supplemental briefs within
3
4
seven (7) days of the signature date of this Order.
5
The
supplemental briefs shall not exceed ten (10) pages.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: September 10, 2013
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court notes that Exhibits 4 through 7 to Plaintiff's motion,
the LOCAT Scoring Forms for Emily, Grace, and Mariah, are blurry
and practically illegible. The Court requests that Plaintiffs
submit legible copies of these exhibits, along with a legible copy
of the LOCAT Scoring Form for Kestrel. These exhibits may be filed
under seal.
4
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?