L.P. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota

Filing 84

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply Regarding Objections 77 is GRANTED. 2. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated January 17, 2 020 68 . 3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 44 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 52 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 5. The matter is REMANDED to the Plan Administrator to: a. Consider add itional evidence regarding physician oversight of L.P.'s care; and b. Allow L.P. to resubmit the benefits claims with appropriate billing codes and reprocess those claims. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/28/2020. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

L.P., by and through her father, J.P.,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 18-1241 (MJD/DTS)

BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Minnesota,
Defendant and Counterclaimant

v.

J.P.,
Counter Defendant.

Charles N. Nauen, David W. Asp, Jennifer Jacobs, and Susan E. Ellingstad,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Jordan M. Lewis, Jordan Lewis, P.A.
Counsel for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant.
David M. Wilk, Larson King, LLP, and Joel Allan Mintzer, Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Minnesota, Counsel for Defendant.

1

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated
January 17, 2020. Defendant and Counterclaimant BCBSM, Inc. filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Schultz dated January 17, 2020.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Regarding Objections
[Docket No. 77] is GRANTED.
2. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated January 17, 2020 [Docket No.
68].
3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 44] is
DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 52] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
5. The matter is REMANDED to the Plan Administrator to:

2

a. Consider additional evidence regarding physician
oversight of L.P.’s care; and
b. Allow L.P. to resubmit the benefits claims with appropriate
billing codes and reprocess those claims.

Dated: February 28, 2020

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

3