Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al v. Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 16 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and Cigna's Complaint is dismissed. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al,

§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
VS.
§
§
HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, LLC, §
§
Defendant.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-3291

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Cigna Health

and Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Cigna”), bring suit against the defendant,
Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC (“HSH”), to recover alleged overpayments made to HSH
for out-of-network services. The complaint (ECF No. 1) asserts various state common
law claims sounding in tort, as well as claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Alternatively, Cigna seeks equitable relief under the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Pending before the Court is the
defendant’s FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
challenges the complaint based on theories of ERISA preemption and statutory standing
(ECF No. 16). The plaintiffs filed an opposing response (ECF No. 21) and the defendant
timely replied (ECF No. 31).

Having reviewed the pleadings, motion, responsive

documents and applicable law, the Court determines that HSH’s motion should be
GRANTED in its entirety.
1/9

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Cigna is a global health service company that offers health care coverage and

benefits through a variety of plans and policies of insurance. According to paragraph 13
of the complaint, the available plans include
(i) self-funded plans for which Cigna provides various third-party claims
administrative services, (ii) plans insured under group policies issued by
Cigna where plans are established and maintained by private employers,
(iii) plans covering federal employees, (iv) plans covering employees of
state governmental entities, (v) church plans, (vi) policies issued to
individuals, and (vii) Medicare.
Under these plans, Cigna members may receive treatment from either “in-network”
providers, who contract with Cigna to render services at discounted rates, or “out-ofnetwork” providers, who set their own fee schedules and have no contractual relationship
with Cigna. Cigna reimburses the cost of services performed by both types of providers,
subject to benefit limits and copayments, deductibles and coinsurance paid by the patient.
Inevitably, Cigna members receiving out-of-network services are required to pay higher
out-of-pocket costs than they would have to pay for similar in-network services typically
obtainable with little or no financial risk or out-of-pocket expense. This allocution of
cost, it is alleged, enables employers to offer affordable health care and incentivizes their
plan member-employees to seek cheaper, in-network services and avoid costly, out-ofnetwork ones.
HSH is an out-of-network provider with an alleged five-bed facility in Humble,
Texas. As an out-of-network provider, it offers health care services at a significantly
higher price than in-network rates for comparable services. HSH admittedly sets its

2/9

prices for services based on comparable fees charged by major hospitals in the Houston
area. Cigna characterizes HSH’s rates as “excessive” and “unreasonable” given its small
size. Since August 2010, Cigna alleges, HSH has employed a billing scheme that causes
Cigna to pay more than its required share under its coverage plans while plan members
pay virtually nothing at all or, at best, nominal amounts. HSH routinely bills Cigna
members at in-network rates, assuring patients that they will only owe the in-network
deductible or coinsurance and effectively waiving patient responsibility for the out-ofnetwork services received. HSH then bills Cigna at the out-of-network rate without
disclosing the waiver. As a result of the alleged scheme, Cigna “processed benefits for
services based on . . . falsely-stated charges and paid . . . benefits directly to [HSH].”
Cigna further alleges that HSH pays referral fees to physicians, some of whom are
owners of HSH, to induce them to refer their patients to its facility. Allegedly, these socalled “kickbacks” are never disclosed to the patients, who are led to believe that HSH is
the only choice that the doctors are able to offer.
Based on these allegations, Cigna asserts state law claims for money had and
received, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Under
these theories, Cigna seeks restitution of overpayments it made to HSH for “false and
excessively billed services.” Cigna also seeks injunctive relief requiring HSH to disclose
the referral arrangements it has made with physicians, especially those who have an
ownership interest in HSH.

The injunction would also enjoin HSH from charging

unreasonable fees and waiving patient responsibility for its out-of-network services.

3/9

Additionally, Cigna seeks a declaratory judgment that HSH’s billing practices violate
various Texas statutes and that Cigna is entitled to recoup all overpayments paid to HSH.
Alternatively, Cigna seeks equitable relief under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3),
“to the extent this dispute involves the exercise of Cigna’s discretion under an ERISA
plan.” Cigna alleges that it is an ERISA fiduciary for this purpose, and that HSH is a
derivative beneficiary of such a plan. Among other things, it seeks a constructive trust
over funds obtained from HSH’s fraudulent conduct, an order requiring the return of such
funds, and an injunction enjoining HSH from disposing of or transferring the funds.
HSH now moves for a judgment on the sufficiency of Cigna’s complaint.
III.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
HSH first seeks a judgment on all of Cigna’s state law claims that arise from its

alleged overpayment of claims under various insurance plans regulated and preempted by
ERISA. Citing Transitional Hospitals Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc.,
164 F.3d 952, 954 (5th Cir. 1999), HSH essentially argues that resolution of Cigna’s state
law claims is “dependent on, and derived from the rights of the plan beneficiaries to
recover benefits under the terms of the plan” and that ERISA provides the exclusive
remedy for these claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a), 1144 (ERISA §§ 502(a), 514,
respectively). HSH further contends that to the extent that Cigna’s claims are masked
ERISA claims, Cigna lacks standing to sue under the statute because it has not pleaded
facts to establish that it is a fiduciary under any specific plan from which the
overpayments arise. In particular, Cigna has not alleged facts showing that it exercises
discretionary authority to interpret the terms of its plan(s) and determine a claimant’s
4/9

eligibility for benefits, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A).

HSH also seeks

judgment on Cigna’s state law claims that arise from non-ERISA plans because, in its
view, Cigna failed to adequately identify them in the complaint.
With respect to preemption, Cigna concedes that it insures self-funded plans and
employee health benefit plans that are governed by ERISA and cites to paragraph 13 of
the complaint in support of this concession. Additionally, on two occasions in its motion,
Cigna expressly admits that the six exemplar insurance claims identified in the complaint
arise from plans governed by ERISA. Nevertheless, Cigna follows these concessions
with several arguments that challenge HSH’s preemption defense: (1) “ERISA cannot
possibly preempt Cigna’s claims for [HSH]’s overbilling regarding non-ERISA plans . . .
[n]or does it preempt Cigna’s state-law claims as to ERISA plans”; (2) ERISA
preemption does not immunize providers from claims of overbilling; (3) HSH’s duty not
to overbill exists independent of ERISA; (4) HSH is not a traditional ERISA entity; and
(5) resolution of Cigna’s state law claims does not depend on interpretation of its plans.
Cigna responds to HSH’s standing challenge by asserting that it is “a fiduciary of the
ERISA plans at issue,” and that it has substantiated this assertion with the factual
allegations contained in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the complaint.
Because it has alleged recovery of overpayments under both ERISA and nonERISA plans, Cigna resists the idea that it bears any additional responsibility for
delineating which of its claims arise from ERISA plans and which arise from non-ERISA
plans. Relying on Access Mediquip L.L.C. v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 662 F.3d 376,

5/9

378 (5th Cir. 2011), it maintains that HSH, as the billing entity, bears the burden of
identifying which insurance claims involve ERISA plans and which do not.
IV.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same standard

as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). E.g., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). “[T]he central issue is whether, in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007);
Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 587 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009); see FED.
R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Although the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts, the

complaint must allege “more than labels and conclusions.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;
Jebaco, 587 F.3d at 518 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do,” and “factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
V.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Cigna’s express concession that ERISA preempts its state law claims arising from

its self-funded plans and employee benefit plans makes it unnecessary to engage in a
lengthy discussion about the scope of ERISA preemption. Cigna’s opposition contains
the following representative statement:
. . . Cigna’s complaint identifies six specific claims at issue by the plan
member’s initials, date of service, procedure, charges billed by Humble,
and the amount paid to Humble by Cigna. (See Compl. ¶ 29). All of these
6/9

patients are members of plans governed by ERISA and administered by
Cigna.
Cigna makes a similar statement in the opening paragraphs of its submission. Because
nothing in the pleadings undermines this concession, the Court finds that ERISA
preemption applies to all state claims arising from Cigna’s self-funded plans and
employee benefit plans.
Cigna bears the burden of alleging facts that establish standing to sue under
ERISA.1 See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), overruled on
other grounds, City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D–4, LLC, 541 U.S. 774 (2004) (“[Plaintiffs]
. . . must ‘allege . . . facts essential to show jurisdiction. If [they] fai[l] to make the
necessary allegations, [they have] no standing.’”).

The statute’s civil enforcement

provision confers standing on “a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary” seeking equitable
relief. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Although Cigna has pleaded that it is a fiduciary, as that
term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) and interpreted by the courts, the allegation
is unsubstantiated and, therefore, conclusory.
In Jimenez v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 486 Fed. App’x 398, 405 (5th Cir.
2012), where an injured claimant appealed the denial of health care benefits, the Fifth
Circuit determined that the insurer was an ERISA fiduciary based on the terms of the
insurer’s policy. The policy expressly granted discretionary authority to the insurer to
determine the plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits as well as the right to interpret the terms

1

For this purpose, Cigna attaches an exemplar plan to its motion response, but the Court will not consider it since it
is not part of the complaint. See, e.g., Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1996)
(“Normally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts
stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint.”).

7/9

of the policy for this purpose. This grant of authority, the Court found, qualified the
insurer as a cognizable fiduciary. Id. Guided by Jimenez, the Court concludes that the
preempted or alternative ERISA claims in this case are insufficient because they do not
incorporate any plan(s) to which Cigna claims to owe fiduciary duties nor do they excerpt
language from those plans from which an inference of standing could be made. See id.;
cf. Salman v. N. Am. Benefits Co., No. CIV.A. H-12-2544, 2013 WL 2422593, at *2 (S.D.
Tex. Jun. 3, 2013) (dismissing ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim against insurer’s
agent because plaintiff-beneficiary failed to plead facts demonstrating that agent was plan
fiduciary).

Because Cigna has not met its burden of demonstrating standing under

ERISA, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over any claims arising thereunder.
Cigna has likewise failed to adequately plead state law claims arising from nonERISA plans. It has not identified any plan(s) that fall into this category. Cigna bears
the exclusive burden of establishing the existence of any plan from which its non-ERISA
claims arise. It is a burden that is inextricably intertwined with its Rule 8 burden to make
“a short and plain statement of [its] claim showing that [it] is entitled to relief.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Cigna misguidedly urges the Court to place its Rule 8 burden on HSH and
misapplies Access Mediquip in the process. Although Cigna correctly points out that
“ERISA preemption is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defendant at
trial,” Access Mediquip, 662 F.3d at 378, the Fifth Circuit made this statement in the
context of a motion for summary judgment, not a Rule 12(c) motion, and where the
insurer was the defendant, not the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the statement presumes that a
8/9

civil complaint has adequately identified a plan in the first instance. After all, an ERISA
preemption defense need not be proven if a plan does not exist. To qualify as an ERISA
plan, a benefit plan must, inter alia, “exist” and not fall within the Department of Labor’s
(“DOL”) safe harbor exclusion. E.g., McNeil v. Time Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 179, 189 (5th
Cir. 2000) (citing Meredith v. Time Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 1993)); see 29
U.S.C. § 1003(a), (b). In the same manner, to qualify as a non-ERISA plan, a benefit
plan must “exist” and fall within a DOL exception.
VI.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, the Court concludes that ERISA

preempts all state claims arising from Cigna’s self-funded plans and employee benefit
plans. Cigna has not alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue under ERISA nor
has it alleged sufficient facts to establish the existence of any plan from which its nonERISA claims arise. As pleaded, Cigna’s state and federal claims are deficient. HSH’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED and Cigna’s complaint is
dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on this 24th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

9/9