Alexander et al v. United Behavioral Health

Filing 241

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 205 Motion for Summary Judgment. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID WIT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 14-cv-02346-JCS
Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS

8
v.
9
10

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GARY ALEXANDER, et al.,

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Docket No. 248 (Case No. 14-cv-2346 JCS)
Docket No. 205 (Case No. 14-cv-5337 JCS)

Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs in these putative class actions allege that they were improperly denied coverage

21

for mental health and substance use disorder treatment by Defendant United Behavioral Health

22

(“UBH”), which administers mental health and substance use disorder benefits under their health

23

insurance plans. In its September 19, 2016 Order (“Class Certification Order”), the Court certified

24

two classes in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 14-cv-2346 JCS (hereinafter, “Wit”),

25

and one class in Alexander v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 14-cv-5337 JCS (hereinafter,

26

“Alexander”). Presently before the Court is UBH‟s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”).

27
28

1

A hearing on the Motion was held on Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. For the reasons stated

2

below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.1

3

II.

BACKGROUND
Factual Background2

4

A.

5

UBH administers insurance benefits for behavioral health services, including services for

6

specific diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions or substance use disorders, for

7

various health benefit plans. Stipulations of Fact (Wit Dkt. No. 257; Alexander Dkt. No. 214) at 3,

8

¶¶ 1, 2. In this role, UBH administers Requests for Coverage on behalf of members of ERISA-

9

governed health benefit plans (“Plans”). Id. ¶ 3. It is undisputed that at the time of each named
Plaintiff‟s Non-Coverage Determination that gives rise to his or her claims in this action, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff‟s health benefit plan was governed by ERISA. Id. ¶ 4. The specific terms and conditions

12

of coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment administered by UBH are set

13

forth in the Plan term documents for each Plan, including but not limited to the Certificate of

14

Coverage and/or Summary Plan Description. Id. ¶ 5.
The claims of putative class members were denied under thousands of health plans that

15
16

contained different language describing covered services and exclusions. Class Certification

17

Order at 3. Id. The Court has found, however, that the Plans of all of the named Plaintiffs and of

18

the Sample Plaintiffs required “as one (though not the only) condition of coverage that the mental

19

health or substance use disorder treatment at issue must be consistent with generally accepted

20

standards of care.” Id. at 4. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected UBH‟s reliance on

21

minor variations as to the words and phrases used to describe this standard, finding that UBH did

22

not point to “any evidence that these differences were material.” Id. at 5.
UBH developed level of care guidelines (“LOCs”) and coverage determination guidelines

23
24

(“CDGs”) to help its clinical staff make coverage determinations. Declaration of Jennifer S.

25
26
27
28

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
2
A more detailed description of the relevant facts is contained in the Court‟s Class Certification
Order at 2-8.
2

1

Romano in Support of United Behavioral Health‟s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Romano

2

MSJ Decl.”), Ex. 3 (Deposition of Andrew Martorana, M.D. (“Martorana Depo.”)) at 76-77.

3

The LOCs are organized by level of care (e.g., inpatient hospitalization, residential treatment, and

4

intensive outpatient and outpatient settings), while the CDGs are organized by diagnosis (e.g.,

5

major depressive disorder, ADHD, and substance use). Romano MSJ Decl., Ex. 2 (Declaration of

6

Dr. Lorenzo Triana in Support of Defendant United Behavioral Health‟s Motion for Summary

7

Judgment (“Triana MSJ Decl.”)) ¶¶ 5-6. Both are updated annually. Id. All of the CDGs at issue

8

in this case incorporated the LOCs. Romano MSJ Decl., Ex. 3 (Martorana Depo.) at 78. All of

9

the class members‟ requests for coverage were denied under UBH‟s CDGs and LOCs.

10

Plaintiffs contend the LOCs and CDGs (collectively, “Guidelines”) fell below generally

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

accepted standards of care in the following respects: 1) “the Guidelines required a showing of

12

acute crisis necessitating the level of care requested, and once the crisis passed, the member was

13

no longer eligible for continued coverage”; 2) “UBH‟s Level of Care criteria failed to consider

14

co-occurring medical and behavioral conditions as an aggravating factor that could necessitate

15

treatment in a more intensive level of care”; 3) “UBH‟s Level of Care criteria precluded coverage

16

for services to prevent deterioration or maintain a level of functioning, but rather required an

17

expectation that services would cause a patient to continually progress toward recovery”; and 4)

18

“UBH failed to adopt any level-of-care criteria tailored to the unique needs of children and

19

adolescents.” Opposition at 4-6. Defendants contend the CDGs and LOCs are consistent with

20

generally accepted standards of care but do not seek summary judgment on that issue, recognizing

21

that there are factual disputes on that question. See Reply at 3.

22
23

B.

Plaintiffs’ Claims

Plaintiffs assert two claims: 1) breach of fiduciary duty (the “Breach of Fiduciary Duty

24

Claim” or “Claim One”); and 2) arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits (“the Arbitrary and

25

Capricious Denial of Benefits Claim” or “Claim Two”). See Wit, Docket No. 39 (“Wit Compl.”)

26

¶¶ 198, 210; Wit Docket No. 123 (“Tillitt Intervenor Compl.”) ¶¶ 88, 99 ; Alexander, Docket No. 1

27

(“Alexander Compl.) ¶¶ 136, 146; Alexander Docket No. 87 (“Driscoll Intervenor Compl.”) ¶¶

28

86, 96. Plaintiffs assert the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B)
3

1

(Count I in all of the operative complaints) and, to the extent the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek is

2

unavailable under that section, they assert the claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(A) (Count III in

3

all of the operative complaints). Similarly, Plaintiffs assert the Arbitrary and Capricious Denial of

4

Benefits Claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (Count II in all of the operative complaints) and

5

under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B) (Count IV in all of the operative complaints).

6

The Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim is based on the theory that UBH is an ERISA
fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) and therefore owes a duty to discharge its duties “with . . .

8

care, skill, prudence, and diligence” and “solely in the interest of the participants and

9

beneficiaries.” According to Plaintiffs, UBH violated this duty by developing guidelines that are

10

far more restrictive than those that are generally accepted even though Plaintiffs‟ health insurance

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

plans provide for coverage of treatment that is consistent with generally accepted standards of

12

care, and by prioritizing cost savings over members‟ recovery of benefits. See Wit Compl. ¶¶ 198,

13

99; Tillitt Intervenor Compl. ¶¶ 88,89; Alexander Compl. ¶¶ 136,37; Driscoll Intervenor Compl.

14

¶¶ 86, 87. Plaintiffs contend they “have been harmed by UBH‟s breaches of fiduciary duty

15

because their claims have been subjected to UBH‟s restrictive guidelines making it less likely that

16

UBH will determine that their claims are covered.” Wit Compl. ¶ 201; see also Alexander Compl.

17

¶ 137 (alleging that “[b]y promulgating improperly restrictive guidelines, UBH artificially

18

decreases the number and value of covered claims, thereby benefiting its corporate affiliates at the

19

expense of insureds.”); Tillitt Intervenor Compl. ¶¶ 89, 90 (alleging that “[b]y promulgating

20

improperly restrictive guidelines, UBH artificially decreases the number and value of covered

21

claims, thereby benefiting its corporate affiliates at the expense of insureds” and that “Ms. Tillitt

22

and the members of the Class have been harmed by UBH‟s breaches of fiduciary duty because

23

their claims have been subjected to UBH‟s restrictive guidelines, making it less likely that UBH

24

will determine that their claims are covered”).

25

The Arbitrary and Capricious Denial of Benefits Claim is based on the theory that UBH

26

improperly adjudicated and denied Plaintiffs‟ requests for coverage by, inter alia, relying on the

27

overly restrictive Guidelines. Wit Compl. ¶ 205 ; Tillitt Intervenor Compl. ¶ 94; Alexander

28

Compl. ¶¶ 141-142; Driscoll Intervenor Compl. ¶ 91. The reliance on these Guidelines was
4

1

arbitrary and capricious, Plaintiffs allege, because: 1) Plaintiffs‟ health insurance plans provided

2

for coverage consistent with generally accepted standards of care; and 2) some of Plaintiffs‟ health

3

insurance plans were subject to state laws that explicitly mandate the use of clinical criteria issued

4

by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (“ASAM”) or the Texas Department of Insurance

5

(“TDI”). See Wit Compl. ¶ 14.

6

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as a remedy for UBH‟s alleged ERISA

7

violations. In particular, in connection with Claim One they ask for: 1) a declaration that UBH‟s

8

Guidelines were developed in violation of its fiduciary duties; and 2) an injunction ordering UBH

9

to stop utilizing the Guidelines and instead adopt or develop guidelines that are consistent with
those that are generally accepted and with the requirements of applicable state law. In connection

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

with Claim Two, the Arbitrary and Capricious Denial of Benefits Claim, Plaintiffs ask the Court:

12

1) to declare that UBH‟s denial of benefits was improper; 2) to order UBH to reprocess claims for

13

residential treatment, intensive outpatient treatment and outpatient treatment that were denied, in

14

whole or in part, pursuant to the Guidelines, using the new guidelines; and 3) to order UBH to

15

apply the new guidelines in processing all future claims. See Wit Compl. at 65-66; Alexander

16

Compl. at 50-51.

17

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to impose a surcharge on UBH as an equitable remedy, under

18

either Counts I and II or Count IV. See Wit Compl. at 66; Alexander Compl. at 51. In the

19

Complaints, Plaintiffs sought a surcharge in an amount “equivalent to the revenue [UBH]

20

generated from its corporate affiliates or the plans for providing mental health and substance

21

abuse-related claims administration services with respect to claims filed by Plaintiffs and members

22

of the Class, expenses that UBH‟s corporate affiliates saved due to UBH‟s wrongful denials, the

23

out-of-pocket costs for . . . treatment Plaintiffs and members of the Class incurred following

24

UBH‟s wrongful denials, and/or pre-judgment interest.” At Class Certification, however,

25

Plaintiffs stipulated that they would proceed “only under the theory that they are entitled to

26

disgorgement of the revenue UBH generated from its corporate affiliates or the plans for providing

27

mental health and substance abuse-related claims administration services in connection with

28

processing of the class members‟ claims.” Class Certification Order at 11-12.
5

Finally, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys‟ fees. Id.

1
2
3

C.

Classes Certification
At the class certification stage of the case, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify three

4

proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). UBH argued that the proposed classes should

5

not be certified because, inter alia, Plaintiffs‟ claims turned on individualized issues of medical

6

necessity, and therefore, Rule 23(b)‟s commonality requirement was not met. See Case No. 14-

7

2346, Dkt. No. 149 at 20-21. Plaintiffs rejected that argument in their class certification reply

8

brief, stating as follows:

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UBH‟s arguments regarding “individualized issues of
medical necessity” also fail. . . . As a threshold matter, UBH does
not (and cannot) argue that Class members‟ individual clinical
presentation is relevant to Claim One. Because that claim is focused
on UBH‟s development of the Guidelines, all of the factual and legal
questions on which the claim turns will relate solely to the validity
of those guidelines.
Individual circumstances are equally irrelevant to Claim
Two. . . . Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to determine whether
Class members were owed benefits or whether UBH should be
ordered to cause its plans to pay such benefits. Rather, Plaintiffs
seek a reprocessing remedy, which stems directly from their
allegation that UBH used an arbitrary process, premised on fatally
flawed Guidelines, to deny their requests for coverage. For that
reason, Plaintiffs need not prove at trial that UBH reached the wrong
outcome in every single one of its coverage determinations.
Case No. 14-2346, Dkt. No. 153 at 5 (emphasis in original).
Similarly, at oral argument, Plaintiffs explained the theories that underpin their claims and
asserted that the remedy they seek flows from those theories, stating as follows:
So we have two claims in the case. We have a breach of
fiduciary duty claim that‟s all about how UBH created its guidelines,
the process it followed. Our assertion is that UBH breached
fiduciary duties that it owes to all class members by undertaking to
create guidelines for administering these plans that were consistent
with generally accepted standards, but failing to do so in violation of
its duties of care, prudence, skill, and loyalty.
And we also have a claim for arbitrary and capricious denial
of benefits, and that‟s a process claim. It‟s about the fact that UBH
used criteria that were inconsistent with the terms of the members‟
plans, and that‟s what made them arbitrary and capricious. It‟s a
different – slightly different issue for the State Mandate Class. The
denials were arbitrary and capricious, and, under ERISA, claims
administrators are not allowed to make arbitrary and capricious
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

decisions, and so the use of those criteria injured the class members
all in the same way.
And the relief that we‟re seeking really follows from those
claims. So our claims are that UBH created bad guidelines and then
used them to administer claims. And so we‟re seeking a declaration
from the Court that the guidelines were inconsistent with generally
accepted standards, an injunction requiring UBH to go back to the
drawing board, do it again, and come up with guidelines that are
consistent with generally accepted standards, to use those guidelines
going forward, and then, most importantly, to reprocess the claims
that it denied pursuant to the bad guidelines. And that is real and
substantive and very important relief for the class.
Dkt. No. 173 (September 7, 2016 Hearing Transcript) at 13-14.
In response to a question by the Court, Plaintiffs acknowledged that the operative
complaints include additional theories that would require individualized inquiries as to why

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

UBH‟s denials of the named Plaintiffs‟ claims for benefits were wrongful. Id. at 4, 7. Plaintiffs

12

stipulated, however, that “if the case is certified as a class case, those individualized additional

13

reasons for why their denials were wrong would not be part of this case.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs

14

further stipulated that “while it might be possible in an individual case for a surcharge to be made-

15

whole relief, that‟s not the measure that we‟re seeking on behalf of the class. And assuming the

16

class is certified, the individual plaintiffs would not be seeking that – would not be seeking

17

make-whole relief as a surcharge.” Id.

18

In its Class Certification Order, the Court relied on Plaintiffs‟ characterization of their

19

claims and requested remedy in support of its conclusion that the commonality requirement of

20

Rule 23(b)(1) was satisfied, reasoning as follows:

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant‟s assertions that
variations relating to the putative class members‟ insurances plans,
medical necessity determinations or the Guidelines themselves
defeat commonality. These variations are not material to the theories
upon which Plaintiffs‟ claims are based. The harm alleged by
Plaintiffs – the promulgation and application of defective guidelines
to the putative class members – is common to all of the putative
class members. Similarly, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the
requested remedy – adoption of new Guidelines that are consistent
with generally accepted standards and/or state law and reprocessing
of claims that were denied under the allegedly defective guidelines–
can be addressed on a common basis. Of particular significance is
the fact that Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to make determinations
as to whether class members were actually entitled to benefits
(which would require the Court to consider a multitude of
7

individualized circumstances relating to the medical necessity for
coverage and the specific terms of the member„s plan). Instead,
Plaintiffs seek only an order that UBH develop guidelines that are
consistent with generally accepted standards and reprocess claims
for coverage that were denied under the allegedly faulty guidelines.

1
2
3
4

Class Certification Order at 30-31. The Court also highlighted Plaintiff‟s stipulation to drop their

5

request for a surcharge that would afford “make-whole relief” to the class members, finding that

6

“[w]ith that modification, the surcharge that Plaintiffs request is based only on the amount UBH

7

was paid to process the claims that were denied.” Id. at 43.
The Court granted Plaintiffs‟ class certification motion on September 19, 2016. UBH filed

8
9
10

a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on September 30, 2016, which the Court
denied on October 12, 2016.
The Court has certified the following classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)3:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Wit Guideline Class
Any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose
request for coverage of residential treatment services for a mental
illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in
part, between May 22, 2011 and June 1, 2017, based upon UBH‟s
Level of Care Guidelines or UBH‟s Coverage Determination
Guidelines.

13
14
15
16

The Wit State Mandate Class
Any member of a fully-insured health benefit plan governed by
both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode
Island, or Texas, whose request for coverage of residential
treatment services for a substance use disorder was denied by UBH,
in whole or in part, within the Class period, based upon UBH‟s
Level of Care Guidelines or UBH‟s Coverage Determination
Guidelines, and not upon the level-of-care criteria mandated by the
applicable state law.

17
18
19
20
21

With respect to plans governed by Texas law, the Wit State
Mandate Class includes only denials of requests for coverage of
substance use disorder services that were sought or received in
Texas.

22
23

The Class period for the Wit State Mandate Class includes denials
governed by Texas law that occurred between May 22, 2011 and
June 1, 2017, denials governed by Illinois law that occurred
between August 18, 2011 and June 1, 2017, denials governed by

24
25
26
3

27
28

Since the Court granted Plaintiffs‟ class certification motion, the parties have entered into
stipulations making minor modifications to the class definitions. The class definitions quoted
above are the current versions of these definitions.
8

Connecticut law that occurred between October 1, 2013 and June 1,
2017, and denials governed by Rhode Island law that occurred
between July 10, 2015 and June 1, 2017.

1
2

The Alexander Guideline Class
Any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose
request for coverage of outpatient or intensive outpatient services
for a mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH,
in whole or in part, between December 4, 2011 and June 1, 2017,
based upon UBH‟s Level of Care Guidelines or UBH‟s Coverage
Determination Guidelines.

3
4
5
6

The Alexander Guideline Class excludes any member of a fully
insured plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of
Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for
coverage of intensive outpatient treatment or outpatient treatment
[was]4 related to a substance use disorder, except that the Alexander
Guideline Class includes members of plans governed by the state
law of Texas who were denied coverage of substance use disorder
services sought or provided outside of Texas.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Class Certification Order at 12-13; Stipulation and Order Regarding Amendment of Date

12

Limitation of Alexander Guideline Class Definition, Case No. 14-2346, Dkt. No. 256; Order

13

Regarding Supplemental Class Notice, Case No. 14-2346, Dkt. No. 281.

14

D.

Summary Judgment Motion

15

In its summary judgment motion, UBH asks the Court to dismiss both of Plaintiffs‟ claims

16

on the basis that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that any concrete injury was actually caused by the

17

alleged violations of ERISA. Motion at 10-16. It further contends the claims of certain named

18

Plaintiffs (and likely those of “thousands of class members” as well) fail because their insurance

19

plans expressly exclude coverage for services that are not consistent with the UBH LOCs. Id. at

20

16-18. In addition, UBH contends it is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims of the Wit

21

State Mandate Class asserted on the basis of Texas state law because the undisputed evidence

22

shows that “it has been UBH‟s policy and practice to apply TDI guidelines – not UBH guidelines

23

– to coverage decisions for plans subject to Texas law for the entire class period.” Id. at 18.
UBH also challenges the surcharge remedy Plaintiffs seek. Id. at 18-22. In particular,

24
25
4

26
27
28

At oral argument, the parties stipulated that the Alexander Guidelines Class definition proposed
by Plaintiffs at class certification and adopted by the Court in its Class Certification Order was
grammatically incorrect as a verb was inadvertently omitted from the second sentence of the
definition. The Court corrects that error here and will use the corrected version of the class
definition going forward.
9

1

UBH contends the proposed surcharge is not available under traditional equitable principles and is

2

not appropriately tailored to redress a loss flowing from the alleged breach or prevent unjust

3

enrichment. Id.

4

III.

ANALYSIS

5

A.

6

Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is

General Legal Standards Under Rule 56

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

8

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show

9

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the non-

10

moving party‟s claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

persuasion at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has

12

made this showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to designate

13

“specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. On summary judgment, the court

14

draws all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-movant. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,

15

378 (2007).

16

B.

17

Legal Framework Under ERISA
“ERISA protects employee pensions and other benefits by providing insurance . . . ,

18

specifying certain plan characteristics in detail . . . , and by setting forth certain general fiduciary

19

duties applicable to the management of both pension and nonpension benefit plans.” Varity Corp.

20

v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 496 (1996)). The basic purpose of ERISA is “to protect . . . the interests

21

of participants . . . and . . . beneficiaries . . . by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility,

22

and obligation for fiduciaries . . . and . . . providing for appropriate remedies . . . and ready access

23

to the Federal courts.” Id. at 513 (quoting ERISA § 2(b), 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b)).

24

An ERISA fiduciary must act for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and must

25

exhibit the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person acting in like capacity would

26

use in similar circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). Further, a fiduciary must discharge its

27

duties with complete and undivided loyalty to plan participants without any dealing for the

28

fiduciary‟s own benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A); see Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d
10

1

1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Under ERISA, “[a]ny person who is a fiduciary with respect to a

2

plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries

3

[under ERISA] shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan

4

resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which

5

have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such

6

other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such

7

fiduciary.” 29 U.S.C. § 1109.

8

In addition, Section 502 of ERISA allows plan participants or beneficiaries to bring a civil

9

action and sets forth certain remedies available to them. 29 U.S.C. § 1132. In particular, Section

10

502(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A civil action may be brought–

12
(1) by a participant or beneficiary–

13

...

14

(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to
enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights
to future benefits under the terms of the plan;
...

15
16
17

(3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act
or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the
terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief
(i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this
subchapter or the terms of the plan;

18
19
20
21

22

ERISA § 502(a)(1) & (3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) & (3).
C.

Causation and Standing
1. Background

23

In the Motion, UBH asserts Plaintiffs‟ claims must fail in light of their stipulation at the

24

class certification stage of the case that they are not asking the Court to determine whether any

25

class member was actually entitled to benefits. Motion at 7. According to UBH, Plaintiffs

26

“reformulate[ed]” their claims to facilitate class treatment but in doing so, “doom[ed] their claims

27

on the merits” because they “eschew[ed] any attempt to prove injury or causation.” Id. at 1. UBH

28

argues that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims simply by proving that UBH‟s guidelines were
11

1

“bad”; rather, Plaintiffs must also establish that the guidelines caused them actual injury –

2

something UBH contends is impossible under the theories Plaintiffs have espoused in support of

3

their claims. Id. at 1.
With respect to the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim (Claim One), UBH contends Plaintiffs

4
5

must demonstrate a “causal link between the alleged breach of fiduciary duty and actual harm

6

suffered by Plaintiffs and the class members.” Motion at 10 (citing Romberio v. Unumprovident

7

Corp., 385 F. App‟x 423, 429 (6th Cir. 2009)). UBH argues that Plaintiffs cannot meet this

8

burden because they have “affirmatively admitted that they will not offer evidence to prove that

9

each (or any) class member was denied benefits because of the specific flaws they identify in the
guidelines.” Id. UBH cites Hein v. F.D.I.C., 88 F.3d 210, 224 (3d Cir. 1996) in support of its

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

position. Id. at 11. According to UBH, in that case, “[t]he Third Circuit rejected the plaintiff‟s

12

breach of fiduciary duty claims because, among other things, he failed to allege facts establishing

13

that the purported breach of duty caused the denial of benefits.” Id. UBH also cites Sedlack v.

14

Braswell Servs. Grp., Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir. 1998) and Graddy v. Blue Cross BlueShield

15

of Tenn., Inc., No. 4:09-CV-84, 2010 WL 670081, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2010) in support of

16

the proposition that “a plaintiff asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA must

17

show that the defendant‟s breach of fiduciary duty caused the plaintiff harm.” Id.
Similarly, UBH argues that the Arbitrary and Capricious Denial of Benefits Claim (Claim

18
19

Two) fails because a required element of such a claim is the wrongful denial of benefits, which

20

cannot be satisfied on the basis of a “classwide „procedural challenge‟ to the development

21

and use of allegedly improper coverage guidelines, untethered from any specific benefit decision.”

22

Id. at 12 (citing Payne v. POMCO Grp., No. 10 CIV. 7285 (BSJ), 2011 WL 4576545, at *2

23

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011); Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 977 (9th Cir.

24

2006) (Kleinfeld, J., concurring); Carrier v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1079 (C.D.

25

Cal. 2015); Biba v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 09-3249 MEJ, 2010 WL 4942559, at *7 (N.D. Cal.

26

Nov. 10, 2010); Romberio, 385 F. App‟x at 429 (citing Hein, 88 F.3d at 224); Sedlack, 134 F.3d at

27

225).

28

UBH rejects Plaintiffs‟ reliance on Saffle v. Sierra Pacific Power Company Bargaining
12

1

Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan, 85 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 1996) in support of Plaintiffs‟

2

position that “because the remedy they seek is „reprocessing‟ of benefit claims, and not payment

3

of benefits” they “do not need to prove causation.” Id. at 13. UBH argues that Saffle is

4

distinguishable because the case was not a class action and “[t]he plaintiff offered actual evidence

5

demonstrating that the plan administrator‟s arbitrary interpretation of the term „total disability‟

6

impacted the plan‟s decision to deny the plaintiff benefits.” Id. (citing 85 F.3d at 458).

7

Finally, UBH argues that Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the Constitution

8

because they cannot demonstrate that they have suffered an “injury in fact” or that any injury they

9

suffered was “fairly traceable” to the conduct that is alleged to be wrongful, namely, the
development and application of the UBH guidelines. Id. at 14 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). According to UBH, in the class action context, these standing

12

requirements apply fully to named plaintiffs in the case, who “must have standing to bring claims

13

on behalf of the class under all legal theories giving rise to the claims.” Id. (citing Allee v.

14

Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 828-29 (1974)).

15

With respect to the “injury in fact” requirement, UBH argues that Plaintiffs must

16

demonstrate that they have suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury that is “actual or

17

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 15 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.

18

1540, 1548-49 (2016)). UBH argues that this requirement is not met because Plaintiffs claim only

19

“abstract violations of the law without specifying what actual, concrete harm this conduct caused.”

20

Id. According to UBH, Plaintiffs identify merely “the possibility of injury,” which is the sort of

21

conjectural or hypothetical injury the Supreme Court has found to be inadequate to confer

22

standing. Id. at 15-16. “It is not enough,” UBH contends, “to speculate that some class members,

23

or some Plaintiffs, may receive additional benefits through reprocessing if it turns out that their

24

earlier denials were caused by the conduct challenged in this case.” Id. at 16. Rather, UBH

25

asserts, “Plaintiffs must prove that now, or fail for lack of standing.” Id.

26

UBH argues further that to the extent Plaintiffs do not intend to prove a causal link

27

between the Guidelines and any particular denial of benefits, Plaintiffs cannot establish that they

28

have suffered an injury that is “fairly traceable” to UBH‟s allegedly wrongful conduct. Id.
13

1

Plaintiffs reject UBH‟s challenges regarding causation and standing and in particular, its

2

assertion that Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they would have received benefits if UBH had

3

applied valid guidelines. Opposition at 10-19. As a preliminary matter, they argue that UBH‟s

4

arguments are merely a “rehash of the same arguments UBH has already made, and this Court has

5

rejected, several times.” Id. at 10. They point to the fact that when the Court certified the

6

proposed classes it recognized that Plaintiffs‟ claims were based on “an injury that is distinct from

7

the actual denial of benefits and that is cognizable under ERISA, namely, the use of Guidelines

8

that are more restrictive than the plans under which they are insured or the standards mandated by

9

state law in adjudicating their claims.” Id. (quoting Class Certification Order at 49). The Court
also rejected the same causation argument when UBH asked it to reconsider its Class Certification

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Order, Plaintiffs contend. Id. Therefore, they argue, under the “law of the case” doctrine, the

12

Court should reject UBH‟s arguments here on the basis that these questions have already been

13

decided. Id. at 11 (citing United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997)).

14

Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that all of the arguments raised by UBH are “thinly disguised

15

decertification motions.” Id. at 11-12. Plaintiffs point out that the Court instructed UBH that it

16

would not be permitted to bring a motion for decertification without seeking leave and that UBH

17

did not do so. Id. at 11 (citing Reynolds Decl., Ex. 68 (Transcript of February 3, 2017 hearing) at

18

41). Thus, Plaintiffs contend, the instant motion is an improper attempt to evade the Court‟s order.

19

Id. at 12.

20

On the merits, Plaintiffs assert that UBH‟s causation and standing arguments are an

21

attempt to improperly “add an element” to Plaintiffs‟ claims, requiring them to show not only that

22

UBH applied the wrong standards but also that Plaintiffs would have been entitled to benefits if

23

UBH had applied the correct standard. Id. at 12. That is not the law, Plaintiffs assert. Id. (citing

24

Class Certification Order at 31-35; Order Granting Mot. for Class Cert., Des Roches v. Cal. Phys.’

25

Serv., Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK, Dkt. No. 123, at 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2017) (Koh, J.)).

26

Neither is such a showing necessary to establish Article III standing, Plaintiffs contend. Id.

27

With respect to Claim One, Plaintiffs assert that UBH‟s development and application of its

28

Guidelines breached the following fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs: 1) the duty of due care (29 U.S.C.
14

1

§ 1104(a)(1)(B); 2) the duty of loyalty (29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A); and 3) the duty to comply

2

with plan terms (29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D)). Id. at 13. According to Plaintiffs, UBH‟s assertion

3

that they cannot establish causation as to Claim One fails for three reasons. Id.
First, Plaintiffs assert, the express terms of ERISA contradict UBH‟s position to the extent

4

that ERISA “provides that „[a] civil action may be brought‟ by a plan participant or beneficiary not

6

only to „recover benefits due . . . under the terms of [a] plan,‟ 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), but also

7

to „enforce . . . rights under the terms of [a] plan,‟ id., to „clarify . . . rights to future benefits under

8

the terms of [a] plan,‟ id., to „enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this

9

subchapter,‟ id. § 1132(a)(3)(A), and to „obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress

10

such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan,‟ id.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

§ 1132(a)(3)(B).” Id. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert, ERISA contains no provision that requires that

12

a plaintiff who brings a breach of fiduciary duty claim must show that the breach caused the

13

plaintiff to lose benefits to which he or she otherwise would have been entitled. Id.
Second, Plaintiffs argue, UBH‟s position “makes no sense” in light of the remedy Plaintiffs

14
15

seek, which does not include payment of benefits. Id. Furthermore, UBH‟s assertion that

16

Plaintiffs must show that the breach of fiduciary duty caused a denial of benefits is inconsistent

17

with Shaver v. Operating Eng’rs Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, 332 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir.

18

2003), in which the Ninth Circuit noted that “Congress intended to make fiduciaries culpable for

19

certain ERISA violations even in the absence of actual injury to a plan or participant.” Id. Thus,

20

Plaintiffs contend, in that case the court held that “although the plaintiffs, who alleged a breach of

21

fiduciary duty, „did not allege that any loss occurred,‟ that „is not fatal‟ because „[t]he question of

22

whether a fiduciary violated his fiduciary duty is independent from the question of loss‟).” Id. at

23

14.

24

Third, Plaintiffs argue that the case authority does not support UBH‟s causation argument

25

and that its reliance on Hein v. F.D.I.C., 88 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 1996), and Romberio v.

26

Unumprovident Corp., 385 F. App‟x 423 (6th Cir. 2009) is misplaced. Id. at 14. According to

27

Plaintiffs, Hein is distinguishable because in that case it was undisputed that the denial of pension

28

benefits was consistent with the terms of the plan and the only benefits the plaintiff claimed on the
15

1

breach of fiduciary duty claim were damages equal to the denied benefits. Id. Plaintiffs further

2

contend Rombiero is not on point, because it was a class certification decision and the plaintiffs in

3

that case challenged a “plethora of „loosely-defined practices that were not applied uniformly.‟”

4

Id. (quoting 385 Fed. App‟x at 430). In contrast to this case, where “UBH has applied its

5

Guidelines to every member of the class, in Rombiero there was no way to know which class

6

members had been subjected to which of the challenged „practices.‟” Id.

7

Plaintiffs also argue that UBH‟s causation argument fails as to the Breach of Fiduciary

8

Duty Claim. Id. at 15. On that claim, Plaintiffs contend, they have sufficiently demonstrated

9

causation because they rely not only on the application of overly restrictive guidelines to their
disability determinations but also, the fact that the Guidelines were used to deny coverage to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

class members. Id. According to Plaintiffs, UBH‟s argument that causation can only be

12

established by showing that class members would have been awarded benefits but for the flawed

13

guidelines has no basis in ERISA. Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3)). To the

14

contrary, they argue, the Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Saffle establishes that “[i]nsofar as ERISA

15

requires causation, it is satisfied by showing that the administrator adopted „a wrong standard,‟ the

16

administrator „applied‟ it to the member‟s claim, and the claim was denied.” Id. (quoting 85 F.3d

17

at 460-61).
Plaintiffs reject UBH‟s attempt to distinguish Saffle on the basis that Plaintiffs have not

18
19

shown that UBH‟s flawed Guidelines “impacted” the denials. Id. Rather, Plaintiffs contend, there

20

is “ample evidence that the flaws in the Guidelines were fundamental, and that those flaws

21

infected UBH‟s denials of Plaintiffs‟ requests for coverage.” Id. at 15-16.5 Plaintiffs also argue

22
5

23
24
25
26
27
28

In Section II(D) of Plaintiffs‟ Opposition brief, Plaintiffs describe the specific reasons provided
by UBH for denying benefits to the named Plaintiffs to illustrate how the denials were linked to
the alleged flaws in the Guidelines. Because the discussion of UBH‟s denials of benefits in this
section reveals the personal medical history of the named Plaintiffs, this information has been
redacted from the publicly-filed version of Plaintiffs‟ brief. The Court does not rely on the
evidence cited by Plaintiffs in this section of their brief to decide the instant motion and therefore
does not summarize it here. For the same reason, the Court need not reach UBH‟s objections to
Plaintiffs‟ reliance on coverage decision letters and clinical case notes in support of this argument.
See Reply at 2 (objecting to Reynolds Decl., Exs. 28-49, 57, 58). Similarly, the Court does not
rely on the expert opinions offered by Plaintiffs on the alleged flaws in the UBH guidelines and
therefore does not reach UBH‟s objection to those reports. See Reply at 2 (objecting to Reynolds
16

1

that UBH has pointed to no case that holds that a denial of benefits claim can only be successful

2

where the plaintiff demonstrates that benefits would have been awarded but for the flawed

3

guideline. Id. at 16. If there were such a rule, Plaintiffs contend, remand for reprocessing – which

4

is the “default rule” – would never be a proper remedy. Id.

5

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that they have Article III standing to assert their claims because
they have suffered injury-in-fact, their injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and

7

their injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. at 16-19. First, with

8

respect to the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim, Plaintiffs contend the injury for which they seek

9

redress – the development, adoption and application of improper guidelines – is cognizable under

10

Article III. Id. at 17 (citing Slack v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 2014 WL 4090383, at *12

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014); Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir.

12

2014)). Plaintiffs contend UBH‟s argument that such an injury is not cognizable is contradicted

13

by Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of

14

Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993). Id. In that case, an association of contractors challenged a city

15

ordinance that gave preferential treatment to minority-owned businesses. According to Plaintiffs,

16

the Court rejected the city‟s argument that the association lacked standing because it could not

17

show that “one of its members would have received a contract absent the ordinance,” finding

18

instead that the “injury in fact” was “the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition

19

of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.” Id. (quoting 508 U.S. at 658).

20

Plaintiffs also argue that the Supreme Court‟s decision in Spokeo is not to the contrary. Id.

21

at 18. Spokeo instructs that in determining whether an intangible harm provides a basis for

22

standing, courts should consider “whether [the] alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to

23

a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or

24

American courts.” Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549. Here, according to Plaintiffs, the harm at issue is

25

grounded in well-established principles of trust law. Opposition at 18. In particular, Plaintiffs

26

argue, “it has long been settled that a trust beneficiary may sue in equity to enforce the terms of a

27
28

Decl., Exs. 50-55).
17

trust, without showing that the trustee‟s departure from the trust‟s terms diminished the value of

2

the beneficiary‟s interest.” Id. (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 71 cmt. a (2007) (“[A]s a

3

protection against harm that might be caused by a breach of trust resulting from a mistake

4

concerning the trustee‟s powers and duties, a beneficiary may petition to the court to instruct the

5

trustee with regard to the powers and duties of the trusteeship.”); id. § 94 cmt b (“A suit to

6

enforce a private trust ordinarily . . . may be maintained by any beneficiary whose rights are or

7

may be adversely affected by the matter(s) at issue.”)). Plaintiffs also note that Spokeo was

8

decided “on the heels of Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), which made clear that, in the

9

ERISA context, insofar as a „specific remedy‟ requires showing „harm,‟ „[t]hat actual harm may . .

10

. come from the loss of a right protected by ERISA or its trust-law antecedents.‟” Id. (quoting 563

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

U.S. at 444).

12

As to Claim Two, Plaintiffs argue that the injury alleged – the arbitrary and capricious

13

denial of benefits – “clearly satisfies Article III‟s requirements” because Plaintiffs‟ claims were, in

14

fact, denied. Id. at 19. Plaintiffs reject UBH‟s assertion that this injury will not be “„established‟

15

until „after reprocessing is complete,‟” id. (quoting Motion at 15), arguing that UBH‟s argument

16

has “no basis in fact or law.” Id. Further, even if some of Plaintiffs‟ claims for benefits may be

17

denied for different reasons, this result does not negate Article III standing. Id. (citing Akins, 524

18

U.S. at 25 (“If a reviewing court agrees that the agency misinterpreted the law, it will set aside the

19

agency‟s action and remand the case – even though the agency (like a new jury after a mistrial)

20

might later, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different reason.”)).

21

22
23

2. Discussion
a. Whether the Court Should Consider Defendants‟ Arguments on the Merits
As a preliminary matter, the Court declines Plaintiffs‟ invitation to deny the Motion on the

24

basis that it is simply a motion to decertify in disguise. It is true that many of UBH‟s arguments

25

regarding causation and standing are closely related to arguments that they made at the class

26

certification stage of the case. Nonetheless, the ultimate question addressed in the Class

27

Certification Order was whether Plaintiffs‟ claims were amenable to class treatment under Rule 23

28

when considered in light of Plaintiffs‟ theories of the case. While the Court also addressed the
18

1

legal underpinnings of Plaintiffs‟ theories, it did not directly consider the question of whether

2

Plaintiffs could prevail on their claims under those theories or whether there was sufficient

3

evidence to give rise to material disputes of fact under those theories. Therefore, the Court does

4

not find the instant motion to be in violation of the Court‟s orders governing the filing of a

5

decertification motion or the “law of the case” doctrine.

6

b. Whether Plaintiffs Can Establish Causation and Article III Standing on their
Claims

7
8

The underlying premise of UBH‟s causation and standing arguments is that in order for
Plaintiffs‟ claims to be actionable Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they were denied benefits as a

9
result of the allegedly flawed Guidelines, that is, that they would have been awarded benefits but
10

for the application of flawed Guidelines. The Court rejects UBH‟s narrow reading of the case law

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

governing ERISA and standing, which does not limit the types of injuries that may be actionable
12

to the denial of benefits, and therefore also rejects UBH‟s causation arguments.6

13
i. Causation of Injury

14

Plaintiffs in this action have stipulated that they do not seek to show in this action that the
15
16

alleged flaws in UBH‟s Guidelines were the “but-for” cause of the denial of their benefits.
Consequently, if denial of benefits were the only injury recognized under ERISA, Plaintiffs‟

17
claims would fail for lack of causation. The Court concludes, however, that as to both the Breach
18
of Fiduciary Duty Claim and the Arbitrary and Capricious Denial of Benefits Claim, Plaintiffs rely
19
on a different type of injury and that their theories of liability are in line with the plain language of
20
ERISA and existing case law.
21
First, whether an ERISA claim is styled as a breach of fiduciary duty claim or a denial of

22
benefits claim, the plain language of ERISA supports the conclusion that a denial of benefits is not
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

The Court notes that to the extent that the surcharge remedy requested by Plaintiffs raises
difficult questions regarding causation and standing, the Court need not decide those questions
because, as discussed below, it finds that under the specific circumstances of this case that
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they will be able to establish the amount of the surcharge
under the theory on which they sought class certification, which is the only theory the Court will
permit Plaintiffs to pursue. Consequently, the only remedy as to which Plaintiffs must establish
causation and standing is the injunctive relief related to the development of new Guidelines and
reprocessing of denied claims.
19

1

the only sort of injury that is actionable. ERISA permits a participant to bring an action not only to

2

recover “benefits due” under the plan but also to “enforce [a participant‟s] rights under the terms

3

of the plan, or to clarify [a participant‟s] rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29

4

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). It further permits a participant to bring an action to “enjoin any act or

5

practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain

6

other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of

7

this subchapter or the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). This broad remedial provision

8

does not support UBH‟s position that Plaintiffs must demonstrate they were actually denied

9

benefits as a result of the alleged flaws in the Guidelines in order to demonstrate causation on their

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

claims.
Second, the case law interpreting these provisions also does not support UBH‟s causation

12

argument. With respect to claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the Ninth Circuit has found that

13

“Congress intended to make fiduciaries culpable for certain ERISA violations even in the absence

14

of actual injury to a plan or participant.” Ziegler v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 548,

15

551 (9th Cir.1990); see also Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, 332

16

F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The question of whether a fiduciary violated his fiduciary duty

17

is independent from the question of loss.”). Under this authority, it is clear that breach of

18

fiduciary duty claims brought by Plan participants or beneficiaries under Section 1132(a) are not

19

limited to those in which the injury alleged is the actual denial of benefits and therefore, that such

20

a claim does not necessarily require that the breach caused a denial of benefits.

21

In Shaver, for example, the plaintiffs alleged that the trustees of an ERISA plan had

22

breached their fiduciary duty by failing to keep adequate records and sought an injunction

23

requiring that the trustees keep better records in the future or that the trustees be removed. 332

24

F.3d at 1202. The plaintiffs did not allege any loss. Id. at 1203. The court rejected a challenge to

25

the claim under Rule 12(b)(6), explaining that the plaintiffs were not required to show a loss

26

because they were “seeking purely equitable relief, either to enjoin future misconduct, or to have

27

the trustees removed.” Id. It reasoned that “[r]equiring a showing of loss in such a case would be

28

to say that the fiduciaries are free to ignore their duties so long as they do no tangible harm, and
20

1

that the beneficiaries are powerless to rein in the fiduciaries‟ imprudent behavior until some actual

2

damage has been done.” Id. The court found that “[t]his result is not supported by the language of

3

ERISA, the common law, or common sense.” Id. The Court concludes that Shaver is on point, at

4

least insofar as Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring UBH to rewrite its Guidelines to conform

5

with generally accepted standards or, as to the State Mandate Class, to require UBH to use the

6

applicable State law guidelines in making coverage decisions. Under Shaver, Plaintiffs may bring

7

an action to enforce UBH‟s fiduciary obligations without establishing that the alleged violation

8

has caused an actual loss, such as a denial of benefits.

9

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Saffle v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. Bargaining
Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan, 85 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 1996) supports the conclusion that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

an ERISA Plan participant or beneficiary may bring a claim for arbitrary and capricious denial of

12

benefits based on an injury other than the actual denial if the process by which a coverage

13

determination was made was defective. In Saffle, a plan participant brought a claim against the

14

plan administrator for benefits she alleged were wrongfully denied. 85 F.3d at 456. The district

15

court found that the Plan administrator had abused its discretion by applying an incorrect standard

16

that conflicted with the Plan terms in making the benefits determination and went on to conclude

17

that the plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the correct standard. Id. The Ninth Circuit agreed

18

that the administrator had misconstrued the plan terms but found that district court had erred in

19

addressing whether the plaintiff was actually entitled to benefits under the correct standard. Id.

20

The court reasons that because the plan administrator had discretionary authority to interpret and

21

apply the plan, the district court should have given the administrator “the opportunity of applying

22

the plan, properly construed” to the plaintiff‟s claim for benefits” in the first instance. Id. The

23

implication of the Ninth Circuit‟s holding in Saffle is that while the plaintiff‟s action was based on

24

a denial of benefits, the relevant injury for the purposes of the district court action was the

25

defective process that was applied to the determination of the plaintiff‟s coverage. Indeed, under

26

Saffle, if a court finds that a plan administrator applied an incorrect standard in making a coverage

27

determination, it is improper for the district court to adjudicate whether the claimant would have

28

been entitled to benefits under the correct standard if the administrator has not first been given an
21

1
2

opportunity to address that question.
UBH attempts to distinguish Saffle on the basis that that case was not a class action and

3

there was “actual evidence” that the flawed interpretation of the plan “impacted the plan‟s decision

4

to deny the plaintiff benefits.” The Court finds this distinction to be unpersuasive. Plaintiffs have

5

offered evidence that the Guidelines they challenged were expressly referenced in the denial

6

letters sent to each class member. The Court finds that this is sufficient evidence from which to

7

conclude that the flaws alleged in this case, if proven, may warrant the injunctive relief Plaintiffs

8

seek. To require Plaintiffs to prove conclusively that their benefits were denied because of the

9

alleged flaws in the Guidelines rather than as a result of other individualized factors relating, for
example, to their medical circumstances, would risk involving the Court in just the sort of inquiry

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that the Ninth Circuit cautioned in Saffle should be left to the administrator, at least in the first

12

instance.

13

Shaver and Saffle do not, of course, stand for the proposition that ERISA claims never

14

require a showing of actual loss. Where a plan participant brings an ERISA claim seeking an

15

award of wrongfully denied benefits – what Plaintiffs in this action refer to as “make-whole” relief

16

– courts require the plaintiff to establish that the ERISA violation actually caused the denial of

17

benefits. See, e.g., Hein, 88 F.3d 210, 213 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that plaintiff who sought an

18

award of compensatory damages in the form of unreduced retirement benefits to which he claimed

19

he was entitled could not prevail on breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA because he was

20

not actually entitled to benefits under plain terms of the plain and therefore “there [was] no causal

21

link between the alleged breach of fiduciary duty . . . and the denial of benefits to Hein.”); Payne

22

v. POMCO Group, No. 10 CIV 7285 BSJ, 2011 WL 4576545, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011)

23

(holding that where plaintiff asserted a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) seeking to recover

24

benefits he claimed were wrongfully denied, the plaintiff failed to state a claim where it was

25

“readily apparent from Plaintiff‟s Fund records that Plaintiff could not have qualified for disability

26

benefits.”).

27
28

In this case, however, Plaintiffs do not seek “make-whole” relief in the form of an award of
denied benefits. Rather, they seek to secure rights and obligations owed to them under ERISA,
22

1

namely, their rights to a plan administrator that acts solely in the interests of plan participants in

2

developing the Guidelines that are used to adjudicate their claims and to have their claims

3

adjudicated under Guidelines that are consistent with the terms of their plans. In other words, the

4

primary harm for which Plaintiffs‟ seek redress is not the denial of benefits itself but rather the

5

loss of these rights. Given the case law discussed above, the Court concludes that ERISA permits

6

Plaintiffs to assert such challenges. Consequently, UBH‟s argument that Plaintiffs must

7

demonstrate that flaws in their Guidelines actually caused the Plaintiffs‟ denial of benefits misses

8

the mark.

9
10

ii.

Standing

Closely related to the question of what types of injuries are actionable under ERISA is the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

question of Article III standing. “To bring an ERISA lawsuit, a plaintiff must not only have

12

standing under the statute, but must also meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S.

13

Constitution.” Wells v. California Physicians’ Serv., No. C05-01229 CRB, 2007 WL 926490, at

14

*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2007) (citing Horvath v. Keystone Health Plan E., Inc., 333 F.3d 450, 455

15

(3d Cir. 2003) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 491, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975));

16

Cent. States SE & SW Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 433

17

F.3d 181, 199 (2d Cir.2005); Bank America Pension Plan v. McMath, No. C 97-3242 CRB, 2001

18

WL 263290, at *9 (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2001)). “[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of

19

[Article III] standing” contains three elements, namely, “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an

20

injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is

21

likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540,

22

1547 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).

23

“To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered „an invasion of a

24

legally protected interest‟ that is „concrete and particularized‟ and „actual or imminent, not

25

conjectural or hypothetical.‟” Id. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). In Spokeo, the Court

26

emphasized that concreteness and particularization are separate requirements. “For an injury to be

27

„particularized,‟ it „must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.‟” Id. at 1548

28

(quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n. 1). Even where this requirement is met, however, the injury-in23

fact requirement will not be satisfied unless the injury is also concrete. Id. “A „concrete‟ injury

2

must be „de facto‟; that is, it must actually exist.” Id. (citing Black‟s Law Dictionary 479 (9th ed.

3

2009)). An injury may be “concrete” even if it is intangible, the Spokeo Court explained, and “in

4

determining whether an intangible harm constitutes injury in fact, both history and the judgment of

5

Congress play important roles.” Id. at 1549. With respect to history, the Court said, “it is

6

instructive to consider whether an alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that

7

has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts.”

8

Id. (citing Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765,

9

775-777 (2000)). The judgment of Congress is also “instructive and important” because

10

“Congress is well positioned to identify intangible harms that meet minimum Article III

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

requirements.” Id. Thus, “Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of

12

causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.” Id. (quoting

13

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

14

Nonetheless, “Congress‟ role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does not mean

15

that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a

16

person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Id. at

17

1549. Thus, while a procedural violation “can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute

18

injury in fact,” for example, where there is a “risk of real harm,” a “bare procedural violation,

19

divorced from any concrete harm” does not “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.”

20

Id. (emphasis added).

21

The harm Plaintiffs rely upon in support of standing on their claims is the denial of their

22

rights to Guidelines that were developed for their benefit and to a fair adjudication of their claims.

23

While intangible, the Supreme Court has suggested that such harms may be cognizable under

24

ERISA. See CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 423 (2011) (explaining that while “a fiduciary

25

can be surcharged under § 502(a)(3) only upon a showing of actual harm, . . . such harm . . .

26

might come from the loss of a right protected by ERISA or its trust-law antecedents.”). Certainly,

27

these violations do not appear to be the sort of “bare procedural violation[s] divorced from any

28

concrete harm” that are insufficient to establish Article III standing under Spokeo. Rather, the
24

1

Guidelines that are at the heart of Plaintiffs‟ claims were used to deny Plaintiffs‟ claims for

2

coverage, allegedly due to flaws that resulted from UBH‟s failure to adhere to its duties to plan

3

members as a fiduciary. This undisputed fact points to the conclusion that the rights allegedly

4

denied implicate a “risk of real harm.”
Further, with respect to Plaintiffs‟ request for injunctive relief, there is a significant body

5
6

of case law that supports the conclusion that Plaintiffs need not demonstrate an actual loss to have

7

standing to seek injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). See Horvath v. Keystone Health

8

Plan E., Inc., 333 F.3d 450, 455 (3d Cir. 2003); Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare

9

Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 181, 199 (2d Cir. 2005); Slack v. Int’l
Union of Operating Engineers, No. C-13-5001 EMC, 2014 WL 4090383, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

19, 2014) (finding that ERISA confers statutory standing to seek injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C.

12

§ 1132(a)(3) and that a plaintiff need not experience an actual loss to have standing under Article

13

III to assert such a claim); Wells v. California Physician’ Serv., No. C05-01229 CRB, 2007 WL

14

926490, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2007) (“courts hold that when plan participants seek injunctive

15

relief for violations of ERISA‟s disclosure or fiduciary requirements, they can demonstrate Article

16

III standing by showing a violation of ERISA and need not prove actual injury”).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have Article III standing as to both of the

17
18
19
20

claims they assert in this action.
D.

Surcharge Remedy
Because Plaintiffs seek a surcharge as a restitutionary remedy based on disgorgement, the

21

Court looks to the principles of restitution in evaluating whether UBH is entitled to summary

22

judgment as to Plaintiffs‟ surcharge remedy. The Court concludes that it is.

23

“The object of the disgorgement remedy ˗ to eliminate the possibility of profit from

24

conscious wrongdoing ˗ is one of the cornerstones of the law of restitution and unjust enrichment.”

25

Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51, Comment e (2011). Because this

26

equitable remedy is aimed at preventing unjust enrichment on the part of the wrongdoer rather

27

than compensating the plaintiff for an actual loss, the claimant‟s recovery “may potentially exceed

28

any loss to the claimant.” Id., Comment a. The difficulty courts often face, however, is
25

1

determining “the net increase in the assets of the wrongdoer . . . that . . . is attributable to the

2

underlying wrong.” Id.
In this case the Court, based on Plaintiffs‟ stipulation, limited Plaintiffs‟ surcharge claim to

3
4

“the amount UBH was paid to process the claims that were denied.” Class Certification Order at

5

43. In opposing UBH‟s summary judgment motion, however, Plaintiffs did not point to any

6

evidence that would allow the Court to reasonably determine the amount of UBH‟s profits that is

7

attributable to the alleged wrongdoing, namely, applying flawed Guidelines to Plaintiffs‟ claims.

8

Instead, Plaintiffs assert that they can establish the amount of the surcharge by presenting evidence

9

showing the amount UBH was paid to administer all of the class members‟ claims, including
claims that may have been approved and claims that were denied but did not rely on the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Guidelines as the basis for the denial. The measure proposed by Plaintiffs would capture profit

12

that is not attributable to UBH‟s creation of the challenged Guidelines and application of those

13

Guidelines to the class members‟ claims for coverage. Further, Plaintiffs conceded at oral

14

argument that they have no expert testimony or other evidence that would allow the Court to make

15

a reasonable determination of the amount of the payments received by UBH that were attributable

16

to the alleged wrongful conduct by UBH.
The Court therefore concludes that UBH is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs‟

17
18
19
20
21

request for a surcharge, which is dismissed with prejudice.
E.

Exclusion for Services Not Consistent with LOCs
1. Background
UBH contends it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to all of the

22

claims asserted by named Plaintiffs and class members whose plans specifically exclude coverage

23

for services that are not consistent with UBH‟s LOCs. Motion at 16-17. According to UBH, the

24

plans of all but three of the named Plaintiffs include such exclusions. Id. at 17. In particular,

25

according to UBH “[i]t is undisputed that the health plans applicable to Plaintiffs Wit (both David

26

and Natasha), Pfeifer, Holdnak, Muir, Tillitt, Alexander and Driscoll specifically exclude coverage

27

for treatment that is [n]ot consistent with [UBH‟s] level of care guidelines or best practices as

28

modified from time to time.” Id. UBH contends these are separate and independent exclusions
26

1

that support UBH‟s denial of coverage regardless of whether their Guidelines adhere to generally

2

accepted standards. Id.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that UBH‟s reliance on the “guidelines exception” is

3
4

misplaced for several reasons. Opposition at 19. First, Plaintiffs point to the Court‟s conclusion

5

in the Class Certification Order that “Plaintiffs had „demonstrated, as a factual matter, that the

6

insurance plans for the putative class members. . . require as a condition of coverage adherence to

7

generally accepted standards and/or state law.‟” Id. at 19-20 (quoting Class Certification Order at

8

33). Plaintiffs note that the Court expressly found that UBH had pointed to “nothing in any plan

9

that would suggest that the „guidelines exception‟ would permit insurance plans to adopt rules that

10

are inconsistent with those standards.” Id. at 20.
Second, if the Court were to reconsider this issue, Plaintiffs argue that there is “(at least) a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

genuine dispute as to the effect of the exclusion.” Id. Plaintiffs contend UBH has simply focused

13

on a single phrase from these Plaintiffs‟ plans, taken out of context. Id. When the exclusion is

14

read in light of the plan language as a whole, Plaintiffs assert, it is apparent that the Guidelines are

15

supposed to be consistent with generally accepted standards and therefore, that the guidelines

16

exception does not constitute a separate and independent basis for denying a claim for benefits.

17

Id.

18

With respect to the plans of named Plaintiffs Wit, Tillitt, Pfeifer, Alexander, and Driscoll,

19

Plaintiffs point to the definition of “Covered Health Services” in their plans, which “all inform

20

their members that UBH „maintain[s] clinical protocols that describe the . . . prevailing medical

21

standards and clinical guidelines supporting our determinations regarding specific services.‟” Id.

22

(citing Reynolds Decl., Ex. 18 at 16; Ex. 22 at 11; Ex. 23 at 12; Ex. 24 at 12; Ex. 25 at 16). These

23

plans “define the phrase „[p]revailing medical standards and clinical guidelines‟ to mean:

24

„nationally recognized professional standards of care including, but not limited to, national

25

consensus statements, nationally recognized clinical guidelines, and national specialty society

26

guidelines.‟” Id. (quoting Reynolds Decl., Ex. 18 at 16; Ex. 22 at 11; Ex. 23 at 12; Ex. 24 at 12;

27

Ex. 25 at 16). As to these plans, Plaintiffs argue, “[r]eading the Guideline[s] Exclusion

28

consistently with the definition of Covered Services, . . . the Court could reasonably conclude that
27

1

the exclusion did not authorize UBH to adopt any guidelines it wants” but instead “merely

2

underscores that UBH will decide whether the services meet generally accepted standards by using

3

its Guidelines, which describe those standards.” Id. at 20-21.

4

The plan of Plaintiff Brian Muir also does not support UBH‟s position, Plaintiffs argue,

5

because his plan does not contain the “Guideline[s] Exclusion,” instead containing a “garbled

6

paragraph” that excludes coverage for services that, in UBH‟s reasonable judgment, are:

7
8
9

(4) Not consistent with [UBH‟s] level of care guidelines or best
practices as duration of treatment, and considered ineffective for the
patient‟s Mental Illness, substance use disorder or condition based
on generally accepted standards of medical practice and
benchmarks.
Id. at 21 (quoting Reynolds Decl., Ex. 21 at 12 (emphasis added)). Plaintiffs contend this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

exclusion (if it “means anything”), “directly links UBH‟s level of care guidelines with generally

12

accepted standards of care.” Id.

13

As to the Holdnak plan, Plaintiffs argue that “the exclusion cannot reasonably be

14

interpreted as authorizing UBH to adopt level of care guidelines that grossly restrict the coverage

15

otherwise provided by the Plan” because such an interpretation “would mean that UBH could

16

adopt any Guidelines it chose, subject to no limiting principle, even Guidelines that in effect

17

negated all or substantially all behavioral health coverage.” Id. Plaintiffs contend UBH‟s own

18

witnesses testified that UBH cannot use the Guidelines to “rewrite the Plan” in this manner. Id.

19

(citing Reynolds Decl., Ex. 75 (Dehlin Dep.) at 128, 147, 149).

20

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that UBH‟s “self-interested interpretation of the Guideline[s]

21

Exclusion runs afoul of ERISA, as well” because UBH is an ERISA fiduciary and therefore, was

22

“required to discharge its duties – including when it developed guidelines to standardize its Plan

23

interpretations – „solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries.‟” Id. at 22 (quoting 29

24

U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)). Moreover, Plaintiffs assert, under ERISA, “any provision in an agreement

25

or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or liability for any

26

responsibility, obligation, or duty under this part shall be void as against public policy.” Id.

27

(quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1110(a)). And Plaintiffs argue further that to the extent the Guidelines

28

Exclusion applies only to mental health and substance use disorders, these plan exclusions would
28

1

violate the Mental Health Parity Act under UBH‟s interpretation. Id. at 22-23 (citing 29 U.S.C.

2

§1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii) (prohibiting “separate treatment limitations that are applicable only with

3

respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits”); id. § 1104(a)(1)(D) (ERISA fiduciary

4

acts in accordance with plans only “insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with

5

the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter,” which includes the Parity

6

Act)).

7
8

2. Discussion
At the class certification stage of the case, UBH argued that the commonality requirement
of Rule 23(a) was not satisfied based, in part on the “myriad exclusions and limitations that give

10

UBH discretion to deny coverage in certain circumstances even if the treatment is consistent with

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

generally accepted standards of care.” Wit, Dkt. No. 148 (UBH Opposition to Class Certification

12

Motion). As one example of this, it pointed to class member plans that “excluded coverage when

13

treatment is „not consistent with the Mental Health/Substance Use Disorder Designee‟s level of

14

care guidelines or best practices as modified from time to time.‟” Id. UBH argued that “[f]or

15

these members, UBH‟s fiduciary duty to administer the plan in accordance with its terms is

16

entirely consistent with UBH‟s application of its internal guidelines.” Id. The Court expressly

17

rejected that argument, however, stating in its Class Certification Order as follows:

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25

The Court . . . rejects UBH‟s reliance on the fact that some class
members‟ health insurance plans excluded coverage for treatment
that is “not consistent with the Mental Health/ Substance Use
Disorder Designee‟s level of care guidelines or best practices as
modified from time to time” (the “guidelines exception”). See
Romano Decl., Ex. 71 (Health plan chart) at 6, 10, 20, 25). To the
extent it is undisputed that all Named Plaintiffs‟ and Sample
Plaintiffs‟ insurance plans incorporated generally accepted
standards, UBH has pointed to nothing in any plan that would
suggest that the “guidelines exception” would permit insurance
plans to adopt rules that are inconsistent with those standards.
Class Certification Order at 33.
As the Court has already found that under the named Plaintiffs‟ plans the Guidelines

26

exception does not allow UBH to adopt standards that are inconsistent with generally accepted

27

standards, the Court declines to revisit that question here. Therefore, the Court denies UBH‟s

28

request for summary judgment on this ground.
29

1
2
3

F.

Claims Asserted Under Texas Law
1. Background
The Wit State Mandate Class covers denials governed by the laws of Texas, Illinois,

4

Connecticut and Rhode Island and is represented by Plaintiff Brandt Pfeiffer. UBH argues that it

5

is entitled to summary judgment with respect to any claims that rely on Texas state law because

6

the undisputed evidence reflects that “it has been UBH‟s policy and practice to apply TDI

7

guidelines ˗ not UBH guidelines ˗ to coverage decisions for plans subject to Texas law for

8

the entire class period.” Motion at 18 (citing Romano MSJ Decl., Ex. 17 (Brennecke Depo.) at

9

115-118; id., Ex. 2 (Triana MSJ Decl.) at 2).

10

In addition, UBH asserts, only two of the 110 sample coverage determinations produced in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

this case were governed by Texas law and Plaintiffs have conceded that Texas law was applied in

12

both cases. Id. (citing Motion for Class Certification Order, Dkt. No. 133 at 13 n. 12 (noting that

13

the Claim Sample included some denials that “fell outside the Class definitions,” including “two

14

cases [in which] UBH used Texas Department of Insurance criteria to adjudicate the claims as

15

required under Texas state law for fully-insured plans” and identifying sample claimants as RTC-

16

21 and IOP-01); Reynolds Class Certification Decl., Dkt. No. 129-1, Ex. F (chart listing basic

17

information about named Plaintiffs and Sample Plaintiffs in the putative classes) at 3 (listing for

18

RTC-21, Sample ID No. 8873, noting that denial was based on Coverage Determination Guideline

19

for Treatment of Substance Use Disorders AND Texas Department of Insurance Chemical

20

Dependency Standard) and 9 (listing for IOP-01, noting that denial was based on Texas

21

Department of Insurance Chemical Dependency Standard)).

22

Plaintiffs counter that the question of whether UBH had a policy of applying Texas

23

regulations in adjudicating claims governed by Texas law at least raises questions of fact that

24

cannot be decided on summary judgment. Opposition at 23. According to Plaintiffs, UBH fails to

25

mention that the Sample Plaintiffs included at least one individual whose plan was governed by

26

Texas law and whose denial was based on UBH Guidelines rather than Texas law. Id. (citing

27

Reynolds Class Certification Decl., Dkt. No. 129-1, Ex. F, sample claimant RTC-29; Reynolds

28

Opposition Decl., Ex. 57 (denial letter to RTC-29)). Moreover, Plaintiffs assert, the agreed-upon
30

1

list of Wit State Mandate Class Members reflects that UBH applied its own Guidelines to “deny

2

coverage to hundreds of Members of Plans government by Texas Law.” Id. (citing Reynolds

3

Decl. ¶ 58 & Ex. 56 (chart listing agreed-upon members of Wit State Mandate Class) at 25; Ex.

4

73 (Bridge Dep.) at 82-85).
In its Reply brief, UBH argues that as a matter of law, it was not required to apply Texas

5
6

law to RTC-29 because that claim was for services outside of Texas. Reply at 14 (citing Romano

7

Reply Decl., Ex. 43 (RTC-29 Denial Letter)). UBH also rejects Plaintiffs‟ reliance on the

8

information contained in the chart prepared by Plaintiffs‟ counsel listing the members of the Wit

9

State Mandate Class. Id. at 15. In particular, UBH contends the information in this chart, which
was produced to Plaintiffs by UBH, merely reflects information stored in UBH‟s computer system

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in various data fields and does not show that TDI guidelines were not applied to the claims of

12

these class members. Id. (citing Reynolds Decl., Ex. 56). Further, UBH points to testimony of its

13

witnesses that while the systems UBH uses contain a field for the guideline referenced in the

14

denial letter, TDI guidelines must be entered manually and staff members typically enter a CDG or

15

LOC instead, even if the denial was based on TDI Guidelines. See id. Romano MSJ Decl., Ex. 1

16

(Bridge 4/28/2016 Decl.) ¶ 17; Ex. 45 (Bridge 6/22/2016 Decl.) ¶ 7. According to UBH, the

17

underlying clinical records show that it applies Texas law to claims for services in Texas and

18

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the existence of material dispute of fact on this question because

19

they have offered no clinical records to counter UBH‟s assertion that its policy is to apply Texas

20

law to services sought in Texas. Id.7

21

2. Discussion
The Court denies summary judgment as to claims of the Wit State Mandate Class governed

22
23

by Texas law. UBH has offered the testimony of witnesses Triana and Brennecke that its policy

24
25
26
27
28

7

In a stipulation filed after briefing on the instant motion was complete the parties agreed that
“Texas law only applies to class members‟ requests for coverage to the extent a class member is a
member of a fully-insured plan governed by Texas law, and where Texas law applies, it provides
for the application of Texas Department of Insurance guidelines only where the request for
coverage pertains to substance use disorder services sought or received in Texas.” See Dkt. No.
279.
31

1

is to apply TDI Guidelines (rather than its own Guidelines) to claims governed by Texas law. On

2

the other hand, the records from UBH‟s computer system reflect that UBH applied its own

3

Guidelines to claims governed by Texas law. While one UBH witness states that staff “typically”

4

entered CDGs and LOCs even when they in fact applied TDI Guidelines, that witness also states

5

that staff can manually enter the state standards that they actually relied upon. See Romano MSJ

6

Decl., Ex. 1 (Bridge Decl.) ¶ 17. Moreover, while UBH asserts that the underlying records show

7

that TDI Guidelines were used even though their computer records state that they were not, UBH

8

has not offered evidence based on these records conclusively establishing that all class member

9

claims that were governed by Texas law were evaluated under that law. Therefore, the Court finds
that there is a material dispute of fact as to what law was applied to claims that are governed by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Texas law. Accordingly, the Court denies UBH‟s request for summary judgment as to the Texas

12

claims.

13

IV.

14
15
16

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs‟ claims to

the extent that they seek a surcharge remedy. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: August 14, 2017

19
20
21

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32