Jamie F. v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
Filing
54
JUDGMENT AND ORDER AWARDING RECOVERY OF BENEFITS AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST 48 ; GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 49 ; VACATING HEARING by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (ygrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2020)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
JAMIE F.,
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
Case No.: 19-CV-1111-YGR
JUDGMENT AND ORDER AWARDING
RECOVERY OF BENEFITS AND PREJUDGMENT
INTEREST; GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL; VACATING HEARING
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Dkt. No. 48, 49
10
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Presently before the Court is plaintiff Jamie F.’s motion for entry of judgment. (Dkt. No.
12
13
14
15
48.)1 The motion follows this Court’s order granting judgment in her favor on her claim for
benefits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001,
et seq. against defendant UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company (“UHC”). (Dkt. No. 43.)2
Having considered the parties’ briefing and evidence in support of and in opposition to the
16
17
motion, and the record in this matter, the Court ORDERS as follows:
18
I.
RECOVERY OF BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE PLAN
19
Plaintiff first requests that an award of benefits in the amount billed by Avalon Hills for her
20
residential treatment, $208,250.00. The Court finds that the request to pay the entire amount billed
21
by Avalon Hills is not consistent with ERISA’s terms, i.e., recovery of benefits due under the terms
22
of the Plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). As plaintiff acknowledges, out-of-network providers may
23
bill beneficiaries for amounts not paid by the Plan. Plaintiff has not established that the Plan would
24
have paid the full amount that Avalon Hills billed her parents had coverage not been denied
25
improperly.
26
27
1
The Court finds this motion appropriate for determination without oral argument and
VACATES the hearing set for November 24, 2020.
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal, filed October 16, 2020 (Dkt. No. 49) is
GRANTED.
2
28
In the alternative, plaintiff requests the Court award benefits based on the cost of residential
1
2
treatment that would have been agreed to under a single case agreement (“SCA”) between Avalon
3
Hills and United had it approved treatment by a non-network provider, Avalon Hills. An SCA is an
4
agreement between a non-network provider and a United claims administrator pursuant to which
5
the claims administrator agrees to pay a set rate for residential treatment for the individual claimant.
6
An SCA is often requested due to the inadequacy of a provider network. United concedes that
7
SCAs have been requested and approved for treatment at Avalon Hills. Plaintiff submits evidence
8
of four SCAs approved by United for residential treatment at Avalon Hills during the time Jamie
9
was in residential treatment there. The Court finds this evidence supports a finding that the $1195
10
daily rate in the SCAs establishes the benefits due to plaintiff under the terms of the Plan.
The Court therefore awards benefits due under the terms of the Plan in the amount of
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
$142,205.00, based on the rate of $1195 per day for 119 days of residential treatment.
13
II.
14
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
A district court may award prejudgment interest on an award of ERISA benefits at its
15
discretion. See, e.g., Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 269 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2001);
16
Grosz–Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154, 1163–64 (9th Cir.2001); Blanton v.
17
Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1575 (9th Cir.1987). Generally, “the interest rate prescribed for post-
18
judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is appropriate for fixing the rate of pre-judgment interest
19
unless the trial judge finds, on substantial evidence, that the equities of that particular case require a
20
different rate.” Grosz–Salomon, 237 F.3d at 1164 (quoting Nelson v. EG & G Energy
21
Measurements Group, Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir.1994)). “A court may compensate a
22
plaintiff for ‘the losses he incurred as a result of [the defendant's] nonpayment of benefits.’”
23
Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Bos., 486 F.3d 620, 627–28 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing
24
Dishman, 269 F.3d at 988); see also Barboza v. California Ass'n of Prof'l Firefighters, 144 F. Supp.
25
3d 1151, 1158 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (awarding interest rate of 5% per annum based on evidence of
26
interest rates paid on home equity line of credit to cover expenses while awaiting benefits
27
payments).
28
2
1
Here, based on the bills from Avalon Hills for Jamie’s residential treatment, a total of
2
$208,250.00, Jamie’s parents paid have paid $124,950.00 to Avalon Hills and still owe $83,300.00.
With respect to the $124,960.00 paid by her parents to Avalon, plaintiff seeks prejudgment
3
4
interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum which amounts to $11,586.12 in interest. Plaintiff submits
5
evidence that Jamie’s parents paid $124,950.00 to Avalon for Jamie’s treatment by withdrawing
6
money from their investment account, and the investment account earned an average interest rate of
7
3.5% from between March 1, 2018 to July 31, 2020. Based on this evidence, the Court finds the
8
requested amount of prejudgment interest on this portion of the judgment reasonable.
With respect to the remainder owed to Avalon Hills, plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest at
9
the rate of 9% per annum, based upon the contractual interest rate set by Avalon Hills for the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
unpaid balance it billed Jamie’s parents. Subtracting the amount Jamie’s parents have paid out of
12
pocket from the award of benefits of $142,205.00 leaves a remainder of the benefit award to be
13
paid to Avalon from the in the amount of $17,255.00.3 Prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per
14
annum on this amount equals $4,114.25. Again, based on the evidence of the contractual rate
15
charged by Avalon Hills for the unpaid balance, the Court finds this amount of prejudgment interest
16
with respect to this portion of the benefits award to be reasonable.
Therefore, the Court awards total prejudgment interest in the amount of $15,700.37.
17
18
19
20
21
22
III.
JUDGMENT AMOUNT
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of plaintiff and awards
benefits in the total amount of $142,205.00 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $15,700.37.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.
Date: November 19, 2020
23
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
Under these calculations, the balance of the Avalon Hills billed amount would be paid out
of pocket by plaintiffs, i.e. $65,745.00, assuming Avalon Hills does not reduce the billed amount to
the SCA-derived amount awarded here by the Court.
3
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?