Pacific Recovery Solutions et al v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. et al

Filing 80

Order Denying 63 Motion to Consolidate. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/16/2021. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2021)

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

PACIFIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, et al.,

Case No. 5:20-cv-02251-EJD

Plaintiffs,
11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13
14

CIGNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., et
al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendants.

15

This case is one of three related cases pending before the Court in which a Cigna entity is

16

alleged to have reneged on its agreement to reimburse mental health provider claims at the usual,

17

customary, and reasonable (“UCR”) rates. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. (“Cigna”) moves to

18

consolidate this case, hereinafter referred to as “Pacific Recovery,” with Summit Estate, Inc. v.

19

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., No. 20cv4697 EJD (“Summit”), pursuant to Federal Rule of

20

Civil Procedure 42(a). Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiffs in the Pacific Recovery case, Pacific Recovery

21

Solutions, Miriam Hamideh, Bridging the Gaps, Inc., and Summit Estate Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed

22

an opposition. Dkt. No. 65. Cigna filed a reply. Dkt. No. 68. The motion is scheduled for hearing

23

on February 11, 2021. The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for

24

decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and General Order 72. For the

25

reasons stated below, the Court will deny Cigna’s motion.

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
1

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 9

1

I.

BACKGROUND1

2

A. Summit, Case No. 20cv4697

3

Summit Estate, Inc. (“Summit”) initiated the Summit action against Cigna Health and Life

4

Insurance Company (“Cigna Health and Life”) in July of 2020. This lawsuit encompasses only the

5

claims and patients that were the subject of a prior lawsuit entitled Summit Estate v. Cigna, No.

6

17cv3871 LHK, that the parties agreed to dismiss, subject to a tolling agreement, so that they

7

could engage in efforts to reprocess medical insurance coverage claims for substance abuse

8

treatment for ten patients. Compl. ¶¶ 4-5. The Complaint alleges that within the past two years,

9

Summit took steps to verify available benefits for substance abuse for the patients and was advised
through telephone communications that Cigna Health and Life would pay for treatment at the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

UCR rates. Id. ¶ 6. In reasonable reliance on Cigna Health and Life’s representations and

12

agreements, Summit provided services to the ten patients. Id. ¶ 7. Cigna Health and Life breached

13

their agreements by refusing to pay Summit at the UCR rates and paying instead a different and

14

significantly lower amount for treatment. Id. ¶ 8. Summit further alleges that at the time benefits

15

were verified, Cigna Health and Life was using and planning on using a third-party repricing

16

company to make unreasonably low claim payments and/or to negotiate lower claim payments

17

after the fact. Id. Based on the foregoing, Summit asserts claims for “Breach of Contract-Pre-

18

Admission Oral Agreement”; intentional misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation;

19

fraudulent concealment; negligent failure to disclose; promissory estoppel; and breach of implied

20

contract.

21

B. Pacific Recovery, Case No. 20cv2251

22

Plaintiffs in Pacific Recovery are a group of four out-of-network behavioral health care

23

providers that provide Intensive Outpatient Program treatment (“IOP”) in the United States.

24

Compl. at 4, ¶¶ 67-70. Pacific Recovery Solutions d/b/a Westwind Recovery (“Westwind”), is

25

a California Limited Liability Company and a duly licensed behavioral health treatment provider

26
27
28

1

The Background is a brief summary of the allegations in the Summit and Pacific Recovery
operative complaints.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
2

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 9

1

with a primary place of business in Los Angeles, CA. Id. ¶ 68. Miriam Hamideh PhD Clinical

2

Psychologist Inc. d/b/a PCI Westlake Centers (“PCI Westlake”), is a California corporation and a

3

duly licensed behavioral health treatment provider with a primary place of business in Westlake

4

Village, CA. Id. ¶ 69. Bridging the Gaps, Inc. (“BTG”), is Virginia corporation and a duly licensed

5

behavioral health treatment provider with a primary place of business in Winchester, VA. Id. ¶ 70.

6

Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate Outpatient, is a California corporation and duly licensed

7

behavioral health treatment provider with a primary place of business in Saratoga, CA 95070. Id. ¶

8

70. They seek to represent a class of similarly situated providers against Cigna, a Minnesota

9

corporation with its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, MN, and Viant, Inc. (“Viant”), a
third-party “repricer” incorporated in Nevada with its principle place of business in Naperville, IL.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Id. ¶¶ 1, 18, 71-72.

12

Prior to providing treatment to patients insured by Cigna, Plaintiffs confirmed with Cigna

13

during an initial Verification of Benefits (“VOB”) call that the patient had active coverage and

14

benefits for out of network IOP treatment services. Id. ¶¶ 3, 22, 30. For all the insurance claims at

15

issue, Cigna represented that the claims would be paid at a percentage of the UCR rates, which

16

Cigna would calculate by using either Cigna’s “Maximum Reimbursable Charge” (“MRC”) I or II

17

methodologies. Id. ¶¶ 9-12. Alternatively, Cigna would arrive at the UCR rates “based on rates

18

charged by similar providers in a similar geographic area.” Id. ¶ 12. During the VOB call, none of

19

the Plaintiffs were told by Cigna that their claims could be subject to third-party pricing by Viant.

20

Id. ¶ 36. Rather, Plaintiffs specifically asked and were told that a patient’s claims were not subject

21

to third party repricing. Id. ¶¶ 233-34.

22

In reliance upon Cigna’s representations, Plaintiffs agreed to treat Cigna’s insured and

23

timely submitted bills on industry standard forms and in keeping with industry practices. Id. ¶¶ 12,

24

140, 142. Pursuant to contract, patients were responsible for paying Plaintiffs the difference

25

between the amount Plaintiffs billed and the amount Cigna reimbursed. Id. ¶¶ 157, 161, 243.

26

Contrary to Cigna’s representations, Cigna did not pay at the UCR rates. Id. ¶ 18. Instead,

27

Cigna engaged Viant to negotiate reduced reimbursements with IOP treatment providers. Id.

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
3

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 9

Cigna sent claims to Viant via an Electronic Data Interchange (“EDI”), which included a “repriced

2

rate” that represented the maximum that Viant was authorized to negotiate with providers. Id. ¶

3

112. After Viant received the EDI, it sent providers a proposed payment for claims at reduced

4

reimbursement rates. Id. ¶ 114. These reduced reimbursement rates are not derived from a

5

calculation of the UCR rates, notwithstanding Viant’s representations to the contrary. Id. ¶¶ 18,

6

46, 116. Nor are they set based on the insured’s plan terms or language. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. Rather,

7

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the reduced reimbursement rates represent the

8

lowest payment amount that a Viant representative convinced a provider to accept and are

9

“arbitrary, capricious and unreasonably low.” Id. ¶¶ 97, 117. At no point have Cigna or Viant

10

disclosed their pricing methodologies. Id. ¶¶ 175, 246. Viant only tells Plaintiffs that pricing is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

determined by a “proprietary database.” Id. ¶ 254-55.

12

At the time Viant made its offers to Plaintiffs, it also sent a “patient advocacy letter”

13

(“PAD” letter) to the patient, claiming to represent the patient in a negotiation to reduce the billed

14

amount. Id. ¶ 118. Viant, however, does not have patient authorization to negotiate billed charges

15

on behalf of patients. Id. ¶ 235.

16

Cigna then paid the claims at issue at the reduced Viant rate, which often resulted in

17

patients left to pay for more than ninety percent of their care. Id. ¶ 19. Cigna and Viant allegedly

18

“collude[d] to illegally withhold these out-of-network benefits” to avoid paying tens, and

19

sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars per patient and to drive out-of-network providers out

20

of business. Id. ¶¶ 20, 41. The amounts that should have been paid to health care providers were

21

allegedly unjustly retained and used to pay a “kick-back” to Viant. Id. ¶ 20.

22

Every claim at issue in Pacific Recovery is for IOP behavioral health treatment for which

23

Cigna failed to pay at the UCR rates. Id. ¶¶ 21, 164. Coverage for the underlying medical

24

treatment is not in dispute; only the amount to be paid for the covered treatment is in dispute. Id. ¶

25

32. Plaintiffs do not have contractual relationships with Cigna or Viant. Id. ¶¶ 87, 94. Plaintiffs

26

did not agree to the reduced rates arrived at by Viant. Id. ¶¶ 19, 152-53, 241. When Plaintiffs or

27

patients contacted Cigna to dispute or challenge Viant’s reimbursement rates, Cigna refused to

28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
4

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 9

1

handle or process the claim. Id. ¶ 120. Plaintiffs ultimately had no choice but to “balance bill”

2

their patients for the amounts that they were owed as a result of Cigna’s underpayment. Id. ¶ 161.

3

If Plaintiffs did not “balance bill,” Cigna would assert that Plaintiffs waived patient responsibility

4

and therefore, Cigna had no further obligation to pay any additional amounts on claims. Id. ¶ 247-

5

48, 259. For all the claims at issue in Pacific Recovery, Plaintiffs’ patients were unable to pay

6

Cigna’s shortfall. Id. ¶ 181.

7

Westwind has treated more than 10 patients for whom claims for payment of IOP

8

services were repriced by Viant. Id. ¶ 194. Viant’s repricing resulted in partial payments that, in

9

sum, averaged only 11% of billed charges. Id. ¶ 197. Westwind has not been paid the remaining
89% of the billed amounts owed. Id. Westwind estimates that it has been underpaid by at least

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

$177,317.45. Id. ¶ 198.
PCI Westlake has treated more than 9 Cigna patients for whom claims for payment of IOP

12
13

services were repriced by Viant. Id. ¶ 201. Viant’s pricing resulted in partial payments that, in

14

sum, averaged only 14% of billed charges. Id. ¶ 204. PCI Westlake has not been paid the

15

remaining 86% of the billed amounts owed. Id. PCI Westlake estimates that it has been underpaid

16

by at least $238,108.22. Id. ¶ 205.
BTG has treated more than 21 patients for whom claims for payment of IOP services were

17
18

repriced by Viant. Id. ¶ 208. Viant’s pricing resulted in partial payments that, in sum, averaged

19

only 14% of billed charges. Id. ¶ 211. BTG has not been paid the remaining 86% of the billed

20

amounts owed. Id. BTG estimates that it has been underpaid by at least $736,998.47. Id. ¶ 212.
Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate Outpatient has treated more than 10 Cigna patients

21
22

for whom claims for payment of IOP services were repriced by Viant. Id. ¶ 215. Viant’s pricing

23

resulted in partial payments that, in sum, averaged only 15% of billed charges. Id. ¶ 218. Summit

24

has not been paid the remaining 85% of the billed amounts owed. Id. Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a

25

Summit Estate Outpatient estimates that it has been underpaid by at least $325,000.00. Id. ¶ 219.2

26
27
28

2

The Complaint alleges that Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate Outpatient has been
“overpaid” by at least $325,000.00. Id. ¶ 219. The Court assumes that “overpaid” is a
Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
5

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 9

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) unfair and unlawful

1
2

business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 against

3

Cigna (id. ¶¶ 261-69) and Viant (id. ¶¶ 270-78); (2) intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent

4

inducement against Cigna and Viant (id. ¶¶ 279-94); (3) negligent misrepresentation against Cigna

5

and Viant (id. ¶¶ 295-301); (4) civil conspiracy against Cigna and Viant (id. ¶¶ 302-14): (5) breach

6

of oral and/or implied contract against Cigna (id. ¶¶ 315-35); (6) promissory estoppel against

7

Cigna and Viant (id. ¶¶ 336- 49); (7) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

8

Organizations Act (“RICO”) against Cigna and Viant (id. ¶¶ 350-95); and (8) violations of section

9

1 of the Sherman Act against Cigna and Viant (id. ¶396-415).

10

II.

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . .

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

STANDARDS

12

consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). District courts have broad discretion under this

13

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court

14

for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether consolidation is

15

appropriate under Rule 42(a), the court must “weigh[ ] the saving of time and effort consolidation

16

would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United

17

States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). The party seeking consolidation bears the burden to

18

show that consolidation is desirable. See DMF, Inc. v. AMP Plus, Inc., 2019 WL 9077477, at *6

19

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019).

20

III.

21

DISCUSSION
The two suits share a common issue, i.e., whether Cigna failed to abide by its agreement to

22

pay at the UCR rates. The existence of common issues, however, does not compel consolidation.

23

Dodaro v. Standard Pac. Corp., 2009 WL 10673229, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009). Beyond this

24

common issue, the two cases involve significant differences in fact and law such that

25

consolidation of the cases would be unduly prejudicial to plaintiff in Summit. First, although both

26
27
28

typographical error.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
6

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 9

1

cases involve a Summit entity3 and a Cigna-affiliated entity, Summit is an individual action and

2

Pacific Recovery is a putative class action suit. In Summit, a single plaintiff healthcare provider,

3

Summit, seeks compensation for services rendered to ten patients. In Pacific Recovery, a group of

4

four healthcare providers collectively seek compensation for services rendered to at least sixty

5

patients and propose to represent an unknown number of “similarly situated out-of-network

6

behavioral health providers” that provide IOP in the United States. Dkt. No. 6 at 4. Thus, the two

7

suits clearly involve different provider plaintiffs and different patients. Moreover, Viant is a

8

named defendant in Pacific Recovery, but not in Summit. These differences alone suggest that

9

Pacific Recovery is likely to be far more expansive, expensive, and time-consuming than Summit,

10

which weighs against consolidation.
Second, the two suits involve different treatment. The Summit insurance claims are mainly

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

for Residential and Partial Hospitalization treatment, with only a small percentage of Intensive

13

Outpatient claims remaining because Cigna has already investigated, litigated and negotiated

14

certain Intensive Outpatient claims with Summit. Opp’n at 3. In contrast, the Pacific Recovery

15

insurance claims are exclusively for IOT. The differences in the parties and the services at issue

16

will impact the nature and scope of discovery such that consolidation is likely to lead to

17

inconvenience and delay for the relatively smaller Summit case rather than promote efficiencies.
Third, the two suits involve different time frames. In Summit, the insurance claims are for

18
19

treatment provided between September of 2014 and August of 2017. The complaint in Pacific

20

Recovery does not define a class period. Thus, Summit is confined to a relatively manageable

21

period of three years, whereas Pacific Recovery has no time limitation at all. A different time

22

period alone may not necessarily weigh against consolidation. See Medina v. Mealing, 2006 WL

23

8443382, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006) (consolidating two cases with common questions of law

24
25
26
27
28

3

In Summit, Summit Estate, Inc. is the plaintiff. In Pacific Recovery, Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a
Summit Estate Outpatient is one of four plaintiffs. Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate
Outpatient represents that the two entities “are, functionally, predecessor and successor entities
and are distinct companies.” Opp’n at 2. The management and ownership of the successor is
different from the predecessor. Id. at 4. Further, the predecessor entity is not accredited by the
Joint Commission, where as the successor is. Id. at 2.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
7

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 9

1

and fact, even though the lawsuits each covered a different time period). Here, however, the

2

different time period for each case is one of several other differences between Summit and Pacific

3

Recovery that weigh against consolidation.

4

Fourth, although the two cases involve a number of the same legal claims, Pacific

5

Recovery includes much more expansive claims for violations of RICO, the Sherman Act, and

6

civil conspiracy. These additional claims may increase the scope of discovery and motion practice

7

in Pacific Recovery far beyond what is required for Summit. Cigna argues that the differences in

8

claims does not matter because they all rely on the same factual predicates, and further asserts that

9

the Court need find only one issue of law or fact in common to permit consolidation, citing Power
Integrations, Inc. v. Chan-Woong Park, 2019 WL 119969, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019). In

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Power Integrations, however, the parties were identical and there was a substantial overlap of

12

underlying facts. Unlike Power Integrations, the two cases before this Court do not involve

13

identical parties or a substantial overlap of underlying facts mainly because Pacific Recovery

14

includes expansive claims against Viant that are not present in Summit. Cigna’s reliance on

15

Hutchens v. Alameda County Social Servs. Agency, 2008 WL 927899, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4,

16

2008) is also misplaced. In Hutchens, the motion to consolidate was unopposed.

17

The different procedural posture of each case also weighs against consolidation, even

18

though the two cases are at the pleading stage. This is because the parties in Summit were involved

19

in an earlier filed suit, engaged in settlement discussions, and then discovery, followed by

20

mediation. Eventually the parties in Summit agreed to a dismissal without prejudice so that the

21

parties could attempt to negotiate a resolution. Previous versions of the Summit complaint have

22

already been subject to two motions to dismiss, and the operative Summit complaint now consists

23

of only those claims that survived. In contrast, the Pacific Recovery complaint is the subject

24

separate motions to dismiss by Cigna and Viant. Because Summit has progressed farther than

25

Pacific Recovery, consolidation is likely to produce inconvenience, delay and expense to plaintiff

26

in the Summit case.

27
28

The Court recognizes that there is a potential for inconsistent judgments, particularly as to
Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
8

Case 5:20-cv-02251-EJD Document 80 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 9

1

the Summit entities’ reimbursement claims for IOP treatment. Consolidation of Summit and

2

Pacific Recovery, however, is not the answer because the Summit entities’ reimbursement claims

3

for IOP treatment represent only a small fraction of the total claims at issue in the two cases.

4

Further, the insurance claims at issue in Summit are mainly for Residential and Partial

5

Hospitalization treatment and therefore, may raise factual issues not present in Pacific Recovery.

6

Thus, consolidation for all purposes is not appropriate. See Hughes v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

7

2017 WL 975969, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (declining to consolidate for all purposes where

8

the merits of each plaintiff’s case could potentially turn on case-specific facts).

9

IV.

10

CONCLUSION
The Cigna entities have not carried their burden of showing that consolidation of Summit

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and Pacific Recovery “will aid in the efficient and economic disposition of the case.” Klauber

12

Bros., Inc. v. Forever 21 Retail, Inc., 2015 WL 12720307, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015). The

13

motion to consolidate the cases for all purposes is DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2021
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-02251-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
9