PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C. et al v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP et al
Filing
258
OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 11/20/13. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C., et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 11-425 (ES)
OPINION
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al.,
Defendants.
Appearances by:
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
By: D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC
By: Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq.
John W. Leardi, Esq.
Paul D. Werner, Esq.
103 Carnegie Center, Suite 101
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GRAHAM CURTIN, P.A.
By: Thomas R. Curtin, Esq.
George C. Jones, Esq.
Kathleen N. Fennelly, Esq.
4 Headquarters Plaza
P.O. Box 1991
Morristown, New Jersey 07962
O’MELVENEY & MYERS LLP
By: Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
William T. Buffaloe, Esq.
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Attorneys for Defendants UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., and
OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc.
DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge
This matter arises out of the methods by which Defendant UnitedHealth Group
(“United”) recoups benefit overpayments from healthcare providers. On January 24, 2011,
Plaintiffs Premier Health Center, P.C. (“Premier”), Judson G. Sprandel, II, D.C., Brian S. Hicks,
D.C., Tri3 Enterprises, LLC (“Tri3”), Beverly Hills Surgical Center (“BHSC”), and Jeremy
Rogers, D.C.1 filed a Complaint against United and several of its subsidiaries, including United
HealthCare Services, Inc. (“United Healthcare”), OptumHealth Solutions, Inc. (“Optum”),
Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. (“HNNE”), and Health Net of New York, Inc. (“HNNY”),
asserting claims for benefits, failure to provide a full and fair review, and for equitable relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 et seq.
On April 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which added Amy O’Donnell,
D.C., as a Plaintiff as well additional factual allegations in support of Plaintiffs’ claims. The
Amended Complaint sets forth two proposed classes: the ERISA Recoupment Class and the
Joining in the Complaint on behalf of their members are the Congress of Chiropractic
State Associations, the American Chiropractic Association, the Ohio State Chiropractic
Association, and the Missouri State Chiropractic Association.
1
2
ERISA Chiropractor Class. The ERISA Recoupment Class, whose named Plaintiffs are Tri3,
BHSC, and Dr. Sprandel, is defined as:
All healthcare providers (such as individual practitioners, durable medical
equipment providers or facilities) who, from six years prior to the filing date of
this action to its final termination (“ERISA Class Period”), provided healthcare
services to patients insured under healthcare plans governed by ERISA and
insured or administered by Defendants, and who, after having received payments
from Defendants, were subjected to retroactive requests for repayment of all or a
portion of such payments and/or to recoupments or coerced repayments of prior
benefits.
(Amend. Compl. ¶ 135.) The ERISA Recoupment Class asks the Court “(1) to enjoin
Defendants from continuing to compel return of prior payments of plan benefits; (2) to order
Defendants to return to all Class members all funds, plus interest, that Defendants have withheld
to offset the amounts demanded or that have been paid by Class members to Defendants in
response to such demands; and (3) to declare that any future efforts to recoup payments for errors
or mistakes in prior payments must comply with the specific requirements under ERISA for
adverse benefit determinations.” (Id. ¶ 137.)
The ERISA Chiropractor Class, whose named Plaintiffs are Dr. Rodgers and
Dr. O’Donnell, is defined as:
All chiropractic physicians who, from six years prior to the filing date of this action
to its final termination (“ERISA Class Period”), provided healthcare
services to patients insured under healthcare plans governed by ERISA and
insured or administered by Defendants, and whose claims were subjected to
utilization review requirements imposed by United and/or Optum.
(Amend. Compl. ¶ 136.) The ERISA Chiropractor Class seeks “to enjoin Defendants from (1)
tiering providers based on statistical parameters, (2) denying treatment plans without regard to
patients’ medical needs, (3) imposing pre-certification requirements on patient care without
regard to the terms of the ERISA health care plans, and (4) threatening providers with being
placed on a lower tier or potential loss of network participation if they do not defer to Optum’s
3
demands by limiting care to patients, and to compel United and Optum to replace them with
policies and procedures which comply with ERISA.” (Id. ¶ 137.)
On June 21, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 30,
2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying the motion with respect to Plaintiffs’
claims against United, UnitedHealthcare, and Optum, but granting the motion with respect to all
of Plaintiffs’ claims against HNNE and Plaintiffs’ claim against HNNY for failure to provide a
full and fair review under ERISA. The Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims against HNNE,
and their claim against HNNY for failure to provide a full and fair review, without prejudice.
On June 9, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to certify both the ERISA Chiropractor Class and the
ERISA Recoupment Class. Defendants opposed the motion. In addition, on October 12, 2012,
Defendants moved for summary judgment against the named Plaintiffs of the ERISA
Chiropractor Class. On August 1, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (1) granting
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment against the ERISA Chiropractor Class; and (2)
denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify the ERISA Recoupment Class.2
On April 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which set
forth additional allegations in support of their claims. The SAC proposed the same classes as
those in the Amended Complaint.
On August 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion for Class Certification, which
proposed two new classes: the ONET Repayment Demand Class and the ONET Offset Class. In
response, Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for Class Certification.3 For
2
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify the ERISA Chiropractor Class as moot.
Defendants will also oppose Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification, in
substance, pending the disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Strike and the conclusion of
outstanding discovery.
4
3
the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED with respect to the
ONET Offset Class and DENIED with respect to the ONET Repayment Demand Class.
I.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are fully set forth in Premier Health Ctr. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Civ.
No. 11-425, 2013 WL 3943516 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2013). Thus, for the sake of brevity, the Court
will set forth only those facts that are necessary to the disposition of Defendants’ Motion to
Strike.
United engages in a multistep process to recover benefit overpayments from healthcare
providers that it determined to have been overpaid. First, Defendants send a letter to the provider
identifying (1) the specific claim that was overpaid on behalf of a particular United plan member
(“the Member A Claims”); (2) the amount that United overpaid on that claim; and (3) the basis
on which it determined the overpayment. These letters further (1) request a check from the
provider for the overpaid amount; (2) note that the provider may appeal United’s assessment; and
(3) state that if the provider does not remit the overpaid amount, United may deduct that amount
from future claims submitted by that provider. To the extent a provider does not voluntarily
remit an overpaid amount, United will offset that amount from a future claim submitted by the
provider, oftentimes on behalf of a different United plan member (“the Member B Claims”).
In their renewed Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs define the ONET Repayment
Demand Class as:
All ONET [out of network] healthcare providers (such as individual
practitioners, durable medical equipment providers or facilities) who, from
six years prior to the original filing date of this action to its final termination
(“Class Period”): (1) provided healthcare services or supplies to patients
insured under healthcare plans governed by ERISA and insured or
administered by United, and (2) after having received benefit payments
from United, were subjected to retroactive repayment demands for all or a
portion of such payments. Excluded from this class are all providers who
5
voluntarily paid United in response to United’s repayment demand or
affirmatively authorized subsequent recoupments or offsets as a means to
repay the alleged overpayments.
(Pl.’s Br. Class Cert. [ECF No. 225-1], 3.) The ONET Repayment Demand Class is intended to
encompass the Member A Claims.
The ONET Offset Class is defined as:
All ONET healthcare providers (such as individual practitioners, durable
medical equipment providers or facilities) who, from six years prior to the
original filing date of this action to its final termination (“Class Period”):
(1) submitted claims for benefits to United for services or supplies
provided to patients insured under healthcare plans governed by ERISA
and insured or administered by United; and (2) did not receive such
benefit payments because United applied the payment otherwise due under
the plan toward an alleged overpayment for a claim submitted by the
provider on behalf of a different patient. Excluded from this class are all
providers who affirmatively authorized subsequent recoupments or offsets
as a means for United to recover the alleged overpayments.
(Pl.’s Br. Class Cert. [ECF No. 225-1], 7.) The ONET Offset Class is intended to encompass the
Member B Claims.
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants now move to strike Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for Class Certification. In
doing so, they argue that (1) the proposed ONET Offset Class was not properly pled and has not
been previously pursued by Plaintiffs, resulting in great prejudice to Defendants; (2) the entire
renewed Motion for Class Certification violates the Court’s scheduling order; and (3) the entire
renewed Motion for Class Certification is, in effect, an out-of-time Motion for Reconsideration,
and must be denied. Plaintiffs argue that (1) they set forth the underlying facts of the ONET
Offset Class in the SAC and pursued the issue of offsets throughout this litigation; and (2) in
light of the Court’s previous class certification decision, it would be highly inequitable to strike
Plaintiffs’ renewed certification motion.
6
A.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), the Court has discretion to alter or
amend an order granting or denying class certification at any time before final judgment. See In
re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 793 n.14 (3d
Cir. 1995) (“Under Rule 23(c)(1), the court retains the authority to re-define or decertify the
class until the entry of final judgment on the merits. This capacity renders all certification orders
conditional until the entry of judgment.” (citation omitted)); In re Public Offering Sec. Litig., 483
F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2007) (“District courts have ample discretion to consider (or to decline to
consider) a revised class certification motion after an initial denial.” (citations omitted)).
In general, “there must be some development or change in circumstances to merit
revisiting a class certification decision.” In re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litig., 255
F.R.D. 130, 133 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). “Rule 23 envision[s] modification of a class
certification if, upon fuller development of the facts, the original determination appears
unsound.” Zenith Labs., Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 530 F.2d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1976).
B.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike
i.
The ONET Offset Class
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ newly proposed ONET Offset Class should be struck
because (1) the SAC does not provide fair notice of the central allegations in support of the
ONET Offset Class; and (2) Defendants would be prejudiced by permitting Plaintiffs to now
pursue certification of the ONET Offset Class.4 Plaintiffs counter that (1) in the SAC and
throughout this litigation, they clearly allege that Defendants’ process of offsetting healthcare
Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend the Second
Amended Complaint to add allegations in support of the proposed ONET Offset Class because
any such amendment would be futile. The Court will not consider this argument at this time,
however, because it exceeds the scope of a Motion to Strike.
7
4
benefit overpayments violates ERISA; (2) Defendants’ failure to acknowledge this allegation
does not justify striking Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for Class Certification; and (3) Defendants
will not suffer prejudice if Plaintiffs are allowed to pursue certification of the ONET Offset
Class.
Defendants’ arguments are highly persuasive. The central theory of the ONET Offset
Class is nowhere to be found in the SAC. To be sure, in the SAC and throughout this litigation,
Plaintiffs have consistently alleged that Defendants’ process of offsetting unremitted benefit
overpayments from a provider’s future benefit claims violates ERISA. In doing so, however,
Plaintiffs framed these offsets as part and parcel to Defendants’ adverse benefit determination5
(“ABD”) against the Member A Claims. That is, according to Plaintiffs’ theory of the case up
until their renewed Motion for Class Certification, Defendants’ overpayment demand with
respect to a Member A Claim, and the offset of benefits from a Member B Claim, amounted to a
single ABD against the Member A Claim.
In their renewed Motion for Class Certification, however, Plaintiffs contend that, under
ERISA, the overpayment demand on the Member A Claim constitutes one ABD, while the offset
against the Member B Claim amounts to an entirely separate and distinct ABD. This is an
entirely new theory of the case, of which neither Defendants nor the Court had notice.
Moreover, it is undisputed that this belated new theory requires substantial additional class
As noted in the Court’s August 1, 2013 Opinion, “Under ERISA, an “‘adverse benefit
determination’ means any of the following: a denial, reduction, or termination of, or a failure to
provide or make payment (in whole or in part) for, a benefit . . .”’ Premier Health Ctr., 2013 WL
3943516, at *14 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(m)(4)). “If an insurer makes an adverse
benefit determination (“ABD”) under an ERISA plan, a member or beneficiary of that plan is
entitled to certain rights under ERISA, including (1) sufficient notice of the ABD; (2) the right to
an appeal the ABD; and (3) a full and fair review of the appeal.” Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. §
2560.503–1(g)–(h)).
8
5
discovery on the Member B claims, in which the parties are currently engaged. This additional
discovery occurs at Defendants’ expense and significantly delays this litigation.
Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever of factual developments or other changed
circumstances that would merit consideration of the belatedly proposed ONET Offset Class. See
Zenith Labs, 530 F.2d at 512. Indeed, Plaintiffs provide no reason why they could not have
proposed the ONET Offset Class, or, at the very least, set forth its central theory, in their
pleadings. Plaintiffs now must now accept the results of their failure to do so. They cannot set
forth an entirely new theory of their case and demand discovery, at this late date, and at great
expense to Defendants, when they had every opportunity to so previously. Consequently,
Defendants’ Motion to Strike the ONET Offset Class is granted.6
ii.
The ONET Repayment Demand Class
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ newly proposed ONET Repayment Demand Class
should be struck for many of the reasons set forth in support of striking the ONET Offset Class.
To be sure, Plaintiffs had the opportunity to propose the ONET Repayment Demand Class in
their initial Motion for Class Certification, or in response to Defendants’ opposition to that
motion. As Defendants point out, there is no indication of any changed circumstances that
would call into question the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ initial Motion for Class Certification.
Although not necessary to the Court’s decision to strike Plaintiffs’ newly proposed
ONET Offset Class, it should be noted that Plaintiffs’ new theory of the case—that Defendants’
procedures to recoup benefit overpayments results in two distinct ABDs—while perhaps
technically truly as a matter of ERISA law, presents significant pragmatic difficulties that would
make it difficult, if not impossible, for the ONET Repayment Class and the ONET Offset Class
to coexist. For one, by offsetting amounts from Member B Claims in order to recoup unremitted
overpayments on Member A Claims, Defendants are, as a practical matter, only reducing the
benefits of one plan member. Furthermore, while a provider could, in theory, balance bill
Member B in response to Defendants’ offset, it would be illogical to do so, and the provider
would likely instead balance bill Member A.
9
6
However, there is also no indication that Defendants would be substantially prejudiced if
the Court were to consider the ONET Repayment Demand Class, even at this late date. Unlike
the ONET Offset Class, Defendants do not dispute that they had notice of the central theory of
the ONET Repayment Demand Class, and that consideration of the ONET Repayment Demand
Class would not require additional discovery. Indeed, the ONET Repayment Demand Class is a
significantly narrowed version of Plaintiffs’ initially proposed ERISA Recoupment Class.
Thus, while Plaintiffs should have proposed the ONET Repayment Demand Class at the
time the Court was considering the initial Motion for Class Certification, Defendants would
suffer relatively minimal prejudice, and this litigation would not be significantly delayed, if the
Court were to exercise its broad discretion under Rule 23(c)(1)(C) and now consider the ONET
Repayment Demand Class. Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, the ONET Repayment Demand
Class attempts to comport with the Court’s August 1, 2013 rulings on the ERISA Recoupment
Class, which found significant merit to that proposed class, but pointed out certain obstacles to
certification. Without a finding of substantial prejudice to Defendants, the Court cannot deny
consideration of the ONET Repayment Demand Class on a relatively technical ground.
Consequently, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the ONET Repayment Demand Class is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for
Class Certification is GRANTED with respect to the ONET Offset Class and DENIED with
respect to the ONET Repayment Demand Class. The ONET Offset Class is struck.
The Court will enter an order implementing this opinion.
10
_/s/ Dickinson R. Debevoise__________
DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE, U.S.S.D.J.
Dated: November 20, 2013
11
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?