SDNY Hands Self-Insured Health Plans a Total Win
In what can only be described as a complete and total win for self-insured health plan sponsors, the Southern District of New York recently upheld a plan’s prohibition on assignments of benefits. While a number of cases exist upholding prohibitions on assignments of benefits, what makes this case unique is that the court utterly and methodically destroyed virtually every argument that has been advanced by plaintiffs on this issue.
The case, Medical Society of the State of New York vs. Unitedhealth Group, (SDNY, March 28, 2019), was brought by a group of out-of-network providers as a claim for benefits under ERISA 502(a)(1)(B) under the theory that participant benefits had been assigned to the providers. The out-of-network providers had obtained from the patient/participants an assignment of benefits, a designation as authorized representative under ERISA, and a general power of attorney.
United argued that the purported assignment of benefits was invalid as a matter of law, because the plan specifically prohibits assignments of benefits. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that such plan language did not apply because United waived such prohibition by engaging in the following actions –
- Remitting payments directly to the plaintiff / providers;
- Sending notices of claim denials to the plaintiff / providers, and noting that the providers could appeal such denial if their patients had properly authorized them to do so; and
- Offsetting payments to the plaintiff / providers by overpayments.
The court examined each of the waiver arguments, concluding that each of the waiver arguments were ineffective to overturn the prohibition. Specifically, none of the actions evidenced a clear manifestation of an intent to waive the anti-assignment clauses.
This case is a clear win for plan sponsors who have been fighting these and similar out-of-network provider lawsuits over the past five to seven years. At the same time, this case is a reminder of the need for clear and unambiguous anti-assignment language in health plan documents and summary plan descriptions. The win for health plan sponsors that this case provides was only possible because the anti-assignment language was included in the documents and properly drafted. Further, the anti-assignment language should have clear language preventing waivers, unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the appropriate parties.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.