Wagner Logo

Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook 

 

 

 

The Wagner Law Group

The Wagner Law Group is a nationally recognized practice in the areas of ERISA and employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor and human resources and investment management.

 

Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be amongst the nation's premier ERISA and employee benefits law firms. The firm has seven offices across the country, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities worldwide. The Wagner Law Group's 34 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and five paralegals combine many years of experience in their fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Seven of the attorneys are AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and six are Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, an invitation-only organization of nationally recognized employee benefits lawyers.  Seven of the firm's attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2017, which highlights outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.

 

 

 

Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group

 

  Integrity | Excellence

  

Boston 

Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

 

Washington, D.C.

Tel: (202) 969-2800

 

Fax: (202) 969-2568

 800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 810

Washington, D.C. 20006

 

Chicago

Tel: (847) 990-9034

Fax: (847) 557-1312

190 South LaSalle Street

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60603

 

  

Palm Beach Gardens 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

   

Tampa

Tel: (813) 603-2959

Fax: (813) 603-2961

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 2140
Tampa, FL  33602 

  

San Francisco

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

  

St. Louis

Tel: (314) 236-0065

Fax: (314) 236-5743
25 W. Moody Avenue
St. Louis, MO  63119 

 

Lincoln, MA

Tel: (617) 532-8080

Fax: (617) 532-9090

55 Old Bedford Road

Lincoln, MA 01773

 

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com

 

 

 

 ERISA Plan's Anti-Assignment Provision Bars Healthcare Provider's Benefit Claim

May 31, 2018

 

 

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Eden Surgical Center v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., dismissed a healthcare provider's lawsuit against a group health plan in which the provider sought benefits as the assignee of a plan participant.

Background. Many healthcare providers have recently increased efforts to collect for services rendered to participants in ERISA-covered group health plans when the plan refuses to pay some or all of the cost of the services provided. In this context, some providers have taken the view that when a participant assigns his or her rights to plan benefits to the provider, that assignment includes all of the participant's rights under the plan, including the right to sue for benefits not paid.

To prevent healthcare providers from bringing lawsuits against group health plans, many plan sponsors include anti-assignment provisions in their plan documents. Such provisions either completely prohibit, or substantially limit, the participant's ability to assign their rights under the plan.

Law. In general, courts have upheld anti-assignment provisions. Thus, even when a plan participant knowingly (or unknowingly) assigns all rights to a healthcare provider, that assignment will be void if the plan expressly prohibits such an assignment.

Facts. In 2014, the plaintiff provided surgical services to one of the plan's participants.  Before providing the services, the plaintiff verified the participant's medical benefits under the plan through a recorded phone call. It was advised by a plan representative that the reimbursement would be in accordance with usual and customary rates ("UCR").  Later, it was revealed that the plan actually pays Medicare rates, not UCR.

After completing the procedures, and having the participant assign his benefits, the plaintiff submitted claims for reimbursement.  The plan issued adverse benefits determinations on a portion of the claims and issued payment for the claims equal to the Medicare rate.

The plaintiff appealed to the plan for the full payment and issued a demand letter. The plan administrator did not respond to either the appeal or the demand letter.

In the interim, the plaintiff contacted the plan's insurer and was told that the plan did not contain an anti-assignment provision. When the plaintiff sued, the plan administrator sent the plaintiff a letter stating that the plan contained an anti-assignment provision barring its claim. 

The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the plan contained a valid anti-assignment provision that prevented the plaintiff from asserting the participant's rights. The plaintiff appealed the district' court's determination to the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the doctrine of equitable estoppel renders the anti-assignment provision unenforceable.

Ninth Circuit. On reviewing the matter, the Ninth Circuit noted that reasonable reliance on a material representation is one of the requirements necessary to establish an equitable estoppel claim. In the instant case, the court observed that the plaintiff did not attempt to obtain the plan documents until after it had already filed the lawsuit.  Therefore, the court concluded that any reliance the plaintiff placed on the insurer's misrepresentation concerning the existence of an anti-assignment provision was "unreasonable."

The court noted that "[w]hile it is true that a 'plan administrator may not fail to give a reason for a benefits denial during the administrative process and then raise that reason for the first time when the denial is challenged in federal court,'... that is not what happened here." Specifically, the court found that the plan had raised the anti-assignment provision as a defense after the suit commenced to contest the plaintiff's standing to sue, not as a reason to deny benefits. 

In addition, the Ninth Circuit concluded that although the plaintiff took issue with the plan's pre-litigation conduct,( i.e., its silence in response to plaintiff's administrative claims appeal), the plaintiff provided no authority for the proposition that the plan had an affirmative duty to make it aware of the anti-assignment provision. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

 

 

 

This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.

 

This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.