Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local, 272 et al

Filing 141

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for (106 in 1:09-cv-03096-RA-SN) Report and Recommendation, (103 in 1:14-cv-10229-RA-SN) Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: Montefiore shall not be reimbursed for the ERISA claims of patients O.M., O.N., and F.P.; Montefiore shall be reimbursed for the ERISA claims of patients M.S. and J.B. with respect to any medical costs arising from emergency room treatment that these patients received, but not with respect to any t reatment that these patients received after being admitted to the hospital; Montefiore shall be reimbursed for the ERISA claim of patient B-11 with respect to any medical costs arising from emergency room treatment that this patient received, but not with respect to any treatment that this patient received after being admitted to the hospital; Montefiore shall be awarded pre-judgment interest at the federal prime rate with respect to its post-MagnaCare ERISA claims from the First and Second Acti ons, and shall submit its proposed calculations of the proper amount of this interest to Judge Netburn for approval; and Montefiore shall be awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of $475,185 arising from its successful breach of contract c laims in the First Action. As the parties were previously advised, the choice not to file written objections waives appellate review of this decision. See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 105 (2d Cir. 2013). The Clerk of Court is respectfully dir ected to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 124 in case 09-CV-3096 and at Dkt. 87 in case 14-cv-10229. The cases shall remain open so that Montefiore may renew its application for attorney's fees incurred in litigating its ERISA claims in these actions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 2/12/2019) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED:
/I,) 9

,7'

/t

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER,
Plaintiff,

No. 09-CV-3096 (RA)(SN)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

V.

LOCAL 272 WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Defendants.

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER,
Plaintiff,

No. 14-CV-10229 (RA)(SN)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

V.

LOCAL 272 WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center brought two actions, in 2009 (the "First Action") and
2014 (the "Second Action"), against Defendants the Local 272 Welfare Fund and its manager,
Mark Goodman, demanding payment based on medical treatments that Montefiore provided to
Fund beneficiaries.* The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts, these cases' lengthy
procedural history, and the prior decisions reached in these actions. On May 3, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Netbum directed the parties to file consolidated briefing for all the outstanding issues in

• Plaintiff subsequently filed a third action against Defendants, see 17-CV-10213 (RA)(SN), which raises separate
legal claims from the prior two actions.

these two matters.

See 09-CV-3096, Dkt. 116; 14-CV-10229, Dkt. 80.

On June 18, 2018,

Montefiore filed a consolidated motion for judgment. See 09-CV-3096, Dkt. 124; 14-CV-10229,
Dkt. 87.
Now before the Court is Judge Netbum's January 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation
(the "Report"), (09-cv-03096, Dkt. 140; 14-cv-10229, Dkt. 103) which recommends granting in
part and denying in part Montefiore's consolidated motion.

The parties have not filed any

objections to the Report.
"When the parties make no objections to the Report, the Court may adopt the Report if
there is no clear error on the face of the record." Galeana v. Leomongrass on Broadway Corp.,
120 F. Supp. 3d 306,310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Having reviewed the record for clear error, and found
none, the Court adopts Judge Netbum's thorough and well-reasoned Report in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) Montefiore shall not be reimbursed for the ERISA claims of patients O.M., O.N., and

F.P.;
(2) Montefiore shall be reimbursed for the ERISA claims of patients M.S. and J.B. with
respect to any medical costs arising from emergency room treatment that these patients
received, but not with respect to any treatment that these patients received after being
admitted to the hospital;
(3) Montefiore shall be reimbursed for the ERISA claim of patient B-11 with respect to
any medical costs arising from emergency room treatment that this patient received,
but not with respect to any treatment that this patient received after being admitted to
the hospital;

2

(4) Montefiore shall be awarded pre-judgment interest at the federal prime rate with
respect to its post-MagnaCare ERISA claims from the First and Second Actions, and
shall submit its proposed calculations of the proper amount of this interest to Judge
Netbum for approval; and
(5) Montefiore shall be awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of $475,185 arising
from its successful breach of contract claims in the First Action.
As the parties were previously advised, the choice not to file written objections waives
appellate review of this decision. See United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 105 (2d Cir. 2013).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 124 in
case 09-CV-3096 and at Dkt. 87 in case 14-cv-10229. The cases shall remain open so that
Montefiore may renew its application for attorney's fees incurred in litigating its ERISA claims in
these actions.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2019
New York, New York
"~~.,-~, brams
United States District Judge

3