MONTVALE SURGICAL CENTER, LLC. v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NJ et al
Filing
8
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 12/6/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MONTVALE SURGICAL CENTER a/s/o
MARK REEVES
Civ. No. 12-2478 (WJM)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF NEW JERSEY; PSE&G; ABC CORP. 110,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
of New Jersey’s (“Horizon’s”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Horizon’s motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, Horizon’s
motion is GRANTED.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1
Defendant Public Service Electric and Gas Company (“PSE&G”) maintains a selffunded health insurance plan (the “PSE&G Plan”) for its employees and their
participating family members (“Plan Participants”). (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) As such, the
1
As this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the following assumes the facts in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true. In
addition, because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are rooted in non-party Mark Reeves’s rights under the terms
of the PSE&G Plan, see Compl. ¶ 7, the Court will consider the portions of the PSE&G Plan Description which
Defendant attached to its present motion. Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 247 F.Supp.2d 596, 609 (D.N.J.
2003).
1
PSE&G Plan is an “employee welfare benefit plan” 2 which is governed by the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). Defendant
Horizon is a PSE&G Plan “Claims Administrator,” meaning that it processes Plan
Participant’s requests for medical benefits under the terms of the PSE&G Plan
(“Claims”). (PSE&G Plan Description 109-110, Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, ECF No. 5-4.)
PSE&G pays for those Claims using its own funds. (Id.) As set forth in the PSE&G
Plan, an “Employee Benefits Committee” is vested with the exclusive right to interpret
and administer the Plan. (Id. at 52, Ex. A, ECF No. 5-4; Id. at 119, Ex. B, ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff does not allege any facts which suggest that Horizon is in any way involved with
that Committee.
Non-party Mark Reeves is a PSE&G Plan Participant. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff
Montvale Surgical Center, LLC is an outpatient ambulatory surgery center which
administered injections to Reeves on May 24, 2010 and November 15, 2010. (Id. at ¶¶ 1,
12.) Plaintiff received an assignment of Reeves’s contractual rights under the Plan and
submitted Claims for Reeves’s injections to Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 7,12.) Plaintiff asserts
that Horizon improperly denied Plaintiff’s Claims, and thus, that Defendants presently
owe it $29,525.00. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13.)
On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action in New Jersey state court,
asserting state law claims against Defendants for breach of contract, promissory estoppel,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Id. On April 26, 2012, Horizon
removed this matter to district court, based on its assertion that because Plaintiff seeks to
2
29 U.S.C. § 1002(1).
2
recover benefits under the terms of the PSE&G Plan, Plaintiff has asserted a § 502(a)(1)
ERISA claim which completely preempts Plaintiff’s state law claims. 3 Plaintiff did not
object to removal. Thereafter, Horizon filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which Plaintiff has also failed to oppose.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Failure to State a Claim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint,
in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated. Hedges v.
United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975).
Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the factual allegations
must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level, such that it
is “plausible on its face.” See id. at 570. A claim has “facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
3
ERISA § 502(a) allows “a participant or beneficiary” to bring an action “to recover benefits due to him under the
terms of his plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). “[A]ny state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or
supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA
remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted.” Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004).
3
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the complaint,
attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d
Cir. 2007). The court may also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s] that a
defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based
on the [attached] document[s].” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus.,
998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993).
B. Analysis
In this matter, Plaintiff seeks payment under the terms of the PSE&G Plan for
medical services which it rendered to Plan Participant Mark Reeves. Thus, Plaintiff has
asserted a § 502(a)(1) ERISA claim in which it has named PSE&G – the company which
funds the Plan – and Horizon, a company which processes Claims made pursuant to the
Plan – as Defendants. For purposes of the present motion, the Court notes that a §
502(a)(1) ERISA claim is only properly asserted against a third-party administrator of a
self-funded plan if the third-party administrator is a fiduciary4 of that plan. Briglia v.
Horizon Healthcare Svcs., Inc., No. 03-cv-6033, 2005 WL 1140687, at *5 (D.N.J. May
13, 2005). See also, Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. of New Jersey v. Horizon Healthcare
Services, Inc., No. 07-cv-2538, 2008 WL 8874292, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2008); Wayne
4
ERISA defines a fiduciary as a person or entity that “exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control
respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of
its assets, . . . [or holds] any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such
plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A); see also Briglia v. Horizon Healthcare Svcs., Inc., No. 03-6033, 2005 WL
1140687, at *6 (D.N.J. May 13, 2005).
4
Surgical Center, LLC v. Concertra Preferred Systems, Inc., No. 06-cv-928, 2007 WL
2416428, at *6 n. 3 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2007); Glen Ridge Surgicenter, LLC v. Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., Civ. No. 08-6160, 2009 WL 3233427, at *5
(D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2009).
With that consideration in mind, third-party administrator Horizon now moves to
be dismissed from this action based on its assertion that it is not a fiduciary of the
PSE&G Plan. In considering Horizon’s motion, the Court notes that “the linchpin of
fiduciary status under ERISA is discretion.” Curcio v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
33 F.3d 226, 233 (3d Cir.1994). In other words, fiduciary liability will only attach to
Horizon if it exercises “more discretion and control than that of a mere claims processor .
. . [M]aking initial claims decisions and processing claims fails to constitute a fiduciary.”
Briglia, 2005 WL 1140687, at *8.
In this case, Plaintiff claims that Horizon made an improper determination that
Reeves’ treatments were medically unnecessary and improperly denied payment – which
would be derived exclusively from PSE&G’s funds – for those treatments. Aside from
those bare assertions, Plaintiff fails to plead facts which suggest that Horizon exercised
any discretion or control when it processed Plaintiff’s Claims. Moreover, under the terms
of the PSE&G Plan, interpretation of the Plans terms is limited to the Employee Benefits
Committee, and there are no facts which suggest that Horizon is a part of that Committee.
In short, and as in Briglia:
the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Horizon assumed any
discretionary authority or acted outside the express limitations of the plan
documents which gave all final decision-making to the plan. Granting all
5
inferences to Plaintiff in this motion to dismiss, the Court finds nonetheless that
Horizon is not a fiduciary according to 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) and Horizon is
not a proper defendant under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B).
Briglia at *9 (D.N.J. May 13, 2005). Because Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege
facts showing that Horizon is a PSE&G Plan fiduciary, Horizon’s motion to dismiss will
be GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Horizon’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
GRANTED. An appropriate order follows.
/s/William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: December 6, 2012.
6
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?