The court also found that the plaintiffs’ injuries were “particularized because the Guidelines are applied to the contractual benefits afforded to each individual class member” and “fairly traceable” to United because plaintiffs’ interest in the proper interpretation of their benefits was connected to United’s improper conduct. Plaintiffs need not have demonstrated that they were, or will be, entitled to benefits to allege a concrete injury.” The court disagreed, holding that the plaintiffs had suffered a concrete injury because United’s alleged misadministration of their claims “presents a material risk to their interest in fair adjudication of their entitlement to their contractual benefits. United argued that the plaintiffs “did not suffer concrete injuries” and “did not show proof of benefits denied,” and thus were not harmed by United’s guidelines. The new opinion addresses the issues on appeal more thoroughly, but the result is not what the plaintiffs had hoped.Īs in its prior decision, the Ninth Circuit first tackled standing. In this decision the Ninth Circuit responded by withdrawing its 2022 memorandum disposition, replacing it with a new published opinion, and denying as moot the petition for rehearing and the amicus motions. They filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and numerous amici curiae weighed in as well. Plaintiffs, a class of benefit plan participants who had alleged that United violated ERISA by denying their mental health and substance use disorder claims under medical necessity guidelines that were inconsistent with plan requirements, were understandably miffed.
We found it notable that despite the case’s long history – which includes numerous extensive orders by the district court on a variety of issues, including class certification, a ten-day bench trial, a finding that defendant United engaged in “pervasive and long-standing violations of ERISA,” and attorneys’ fees of more than $20 million – the Ninth Circuit cursorily reversed in a breezy eight-page non-precedential memorandum disposition. In the Maedition of Your ERISA Watch, we examined the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in this case, issued on March 22, 2022. 26, 2023) (Before Circuit Judges Christen and Forrest, and District Judge Michael M.
0 kommentar(er)
