Peterson, D.C. et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al
Filing
56
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Dismiss (Written Opinion). See Order for details. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on January 23, 2015. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
LOUIS J. PETERSON, D.C.; LUTZ
SURGICAL PARTNERS, PLLC; and
NEW LIFE CHIROPRACTIC, PC, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Case No. 14‐CV‐2101 (PJS/BRT)
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.;
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICE, LLC,
Defendants.
Karen Hanson Riebel and Kate M. Baxter‐Kauf, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
NAUEN P.L.L.P.; D. Brian Hufford, Jason S. Cowart, and William K.
Meyer, ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP; Anthony F. Maul, THE MAUL
FIRM, P.C.; and Vincent N. Buttaci, John W. Leardi, and Paul D. Werner,
BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC; for plaintiffs.
Brian D. Boyle, Gregory F. Jacob, and Theresa S. Gee, O’MELVENY &
MYERS LLP; and Timothy E. Branson and Erin P. Davenport, DORSEY &
WHITNEY LLP; for defendants.
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Based on all of
the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on the record at the
-1-
January 23, 2015, hearing, defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.
The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff
New Life Chiropractic, PC (“New Life”) and quoted in paragraph 38 of
the Amended Complaint does not assign the patient’s right to receive
benefits to New Life, but merely gives defendants permission to pay the
patient’s benefits directly to New Life. As a result, New Life does not
have standing to bring this action. For that reason, defendants’ motion to
dismiss all claims brought by New Life is GRANTED, and those claims
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2.
The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff
Lutz Surgical Partners, PLLC (“Lutz”) and quoted in paragraph 44 of the
Amended Complaint does not assign the patient’s right to receive benefits
to Lutz, but merely gives defendants permission to pay the patient’s
benefits directly to Lutz. As a result, Lutz does not have standing to bring
this action. For that reason, defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims
brought by Lutz is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
-2-
3.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims brought by plaintiff Louis J.
Peterson, D.C. is DENIED.
Dated: January 23, 2015
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-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?