Second Circuit Reinstates Mental Health Parity Case Against UnitedHealth

15 September 2015 Health Care Law Today Blog

In late August the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a lawsuit by a physician association against a third-party plan administrator. The case against UnitedHealth Group and related entities (United) had been dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The appellate opinion is significant both because it holds the plaintiff has associational standing, and because it allows parity claims to proceed against a plan administrator.

The plaintiffs claimed that United violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the Parity Act), fiduciary duties under ERISA, and the terms of ERISA-governed health insurance plans administered by United, by using more restrictive guidelines and preauthorization and concurrent review procedures for mental health claims than those for medical claims. United allegedly subjected plan participants to preauthorization requirements for mental health claims that it did not apply to medical claims. It also allegedly conducted concurrent review of mental health claims based solely on the frequency of office visits, which it did not do for medical claims. The medical necessity review standards for outpatient psychotherapy sessions were allegedly more restrictive that those applied to medical claims under the same plan. In the underlying case, United successfully moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the psychiatric physician association did not have associational standing and that United could not be sued for alleged violations of the Parity Act under ERISA.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an association has standing when (a) its members would otherwise have standing; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose, and (c) the nature of the claim and the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to the proper resolution of the matter.

The Court of Appeals also reversed the dismissal to the extent it was based on the holding that United was not a proper defendant. The Court of Appeals stated that United appears to have exercised total control over the health plan’s benefits denial process, making it the “logical defendant” in a suit to recover benefits, enforce rights, or clarify rights to future benefits under ERISA. The Court of Appeals held that a claims administrator has total control where it has “sole and absolute discretion” to deny benefits and makes “final and binding” decisions as to appeals of those denials. It explicitly chose not to decide if a claims administrator is a proper defendant when it exercises less than total control over the benefits denial process. The Court noted that its holding that claims administrators are proper defendants is in accord with six other circuits:  the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh. The U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief supporting reversal on this issue.

The case is N.Y. State Psychiatric Ass’n v. UnitedHealthGrp., No. 14-20-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2015).

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.