Spinal Imaging, Inc. v. Aetna Health Management LLC et al

Filing 156

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. 155 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. See attached Order. (Matteson, Nicholas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SPINAL IMAGING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AETNA HEALTH
MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

RADIOLOGY DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AETNA HEALTH
MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 09-11873-LTS

Civil No. 12-11521-LTS

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
April 4, 2014
SOROKIN, C.M.J.
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment rulings. Doc. No.
155. This Motion is DENIED. Two points bear brief mention. First, contrary to Plaintiffs’
assertion, the Court did not rely upon documents without providing notice to Plaintiffs. At the
hearing, the Court inquired about a particular document and requested citation to the record for
that document. Post-hearing, Defendants provided the citation in a written submission. Doc.
No. 148. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to respond and did so. Doc. No. 149. Notably one

document Plaintiffs complain about in their Motion for Reconsideration, see Doc. No. 155 at 3
(citing Doc. No. 115-2), is a document that Plaintiffs themselves submitted in support of their
motion for summary judgment.
Second, Plaintiffs complain that simply because another provider made a claim for
payment does not mean Aetna actually paid that claim (and thus cannot properly deny Plaintiffs’
claim). Plaintiffs failed to make this argument in support of their motion for summary judgment.
Moreover, neither in their motion for summary judgment nor in their motion for reconsideration
have Plaintiffs provided citation to (a) any evidence suggesting or establishing that Aetna did not
pay the referring provider or (b) the omission or absence of evidence of payment to the referring
provider (which might support a reasonable inference of lack of payment). Accordingly, I
decline to consider this argument in support of reconsideration.1 See Cochran v. Quest Software,
Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2003) (“It is generally accepted that a party may not, on a motion
for reconsideration, advance a new argument that could (and should) have been presented prior
to the district court’s original ruling.”).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

1

In any event, regarding those cases in which summary judgment entered in whole or
part because the referring provider made a claim, see Doc. No. 153-1, the summary judgment
record contains evidence that Aetna not only had received a prior claim from the referring
provider, but paid that claim. See, e.g., ECF0003015 (explanation of benefits indicating
payment to referring provider for exemplar claim 2004-12); ECF0012821 (same for exemplar
claim 2007-25).
2