throbber
Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.2 Page 1 of 19
`
`Brian S. King, #4610
`Brent J. Newton, #6950
`Samuel M. Hall, #16066
`BRIAN S. KING, P.C.
`420 East South Temple, Suite 420
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Telephone: (801) 532-1739
`Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
`brian@briansking.com
`brent@briansking.com
`samuel@briansking.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`DAVID F., and D.F.,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00339 - JCB
`
`vs.
`
`ANTHEM BLUE CROSS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs David F. and D.F., through their undersigned counsel, complain and allege
`
`against Defendant Anthem Blue Cross (“Anthem”) as follows:
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. David and D.F. are natural persons residing in Los Angeles County, California. David is
`
`D.F.’s father.
`
`2. Anthem is the trade name of Blue Cross of California and is an independent licensee of
`
`the nationwide Blue Cross network of providers. Anthem was the insurer and claims
`
`administrator, as well as the fiduciary under ERISA for the insurance plan providing
`
`coverage for the Plaintiffs (“the Plan”) during the treatment at issue in this case.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.3 Page 2 of 19
`
`3. The Plan is a fully-insured employee welfare benefits plan under 29 U.S.C. §1001 et.
`
`seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). David was a
`
`participant in the Plan and D.F. was a beneficiary of the Plan at all relevant times.
`
`4. D.F. received medical care and treatment at Elements Wilderness Program (“Elements”)
`
`from September 18, 2019, to November 13, 2019, and Catalyst Residential Treatment
`
`(“Catalyst”) from November 13, 2019, to March 30, 2020, These are licensed treatment
`
`facilities located in Emery County, Utah and Box Elder County, Utah respectively, which
`
`provide sub-acute inpatient treatment to adolescents with mental health, behavioral,
`
`and/or substance abuse problems.
`
`5. Anthem denied claims for payment of D.F.’s medical expenses in connection with his
`
`treatment at Elements and Catalyst.
`
`6. This Court has jurisdiction over this case under 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1331.
`
`7. Venue is appropriate under 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) based on
`
`ERISA’s nationwide service of process and venue provisions, because Anthem does
`
`business in Utah, and the treatment at issue took place in Utah.
`
`8. In addition, David has been informed and reasonably believes that litigating the case
`
`outside Utah will likely lead to substantially increased litigation costs for which he will
`
`be responsible to pay, which would not be incurred if venue of the case remains in Utah.
`
`Finally, in light of the sensitive nature of the medical treatment at issue, it is the
`
`Plaintiffs’ desire that the case be resolved in the State of Utah where it is more likely
`
`their privacy will be preserved.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.4 Page 3 of 19
`
`9. The remedies the Plaintiffs seek under the terms of ERISA and under the Plan are for the
`
`benefits due under the terms of the Plan, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B), for
`
`appropriate equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(3) based on the Defendant’s
`
`violation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (“MHPAEA”),
`
`an award of prejudgment interest, and an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. §1132(g).
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`D.F.’s Developmental History and Medical Background
`
`10. D.F. was very irritable from the time that he was a toddler. He was frequently ill and
`
`spent a significant amount of time in the doctor’s office. It was eventually determined
`
`that D.F.’s tonsils and adenoids had swelled to the point that they blocked ninety percent
`
`of his airway in some areas. Fortunately, this was able to be resolved with surgery, but
`
`D.F. had been suffering from this condition for so long that it affected his personality.
`
`11. D.F. only wore black and was often sad and angry. He was small for his age and was
`
`often bullied by other students. D.F. was in the first percentile for his height and was
`
`prescribed a growth hormone. He was frequently disruptive and played the role of “class
`
`clown.”
`
`12. Most of D.F.’s friends were older and he started abusing drugs with them around the time
`
`that he was eleven years old. D.F.’s older brother had a similar drug problem and was
`
`hospitalized for his first overdose when he was just thirteen. D.F.’s brother had more
`
`overdoses and was eventually sent to a residential treatment center. This was highly
`
`influential on D.F. and caused him to react in increasingly negative ways.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.5 Page 4 of 19
`
`13. D.F.’s school performance suffered and while he used to be more friendly and outgoing,
`
`he became increasingly withdrawn. D.F. started meeting with therapists and was
`
`prescribed medications for his mental health conditions such as his ADHD. These
`
`medications had undesirable side effects such as causing D.F. to be unable to sleep, or on
`
`one occasion, contributing to a thirty-six-hour rage filled temper tantrum which caused
`
`David to call 911.
`
`14. D.F. started seeing a new therapist, but after only a few sessions he overdosed on drugs
`
`and had to be rushed to the hospital. D.F. was placed on a mental health hold for 72 hours
`
`at the hospital and was then admitted to a treatment program called Visions.
`
`15. While at Visions D.F. was cooperative and made progress but he regressed as soon as he
`
`finished the program. David learned that D.F. was dealing drugs as well as using them
`
`and had become involved with gangs.
`
`16. D.F. started attending a private school with a small class size. On one occasion when he
`
`was supposed to go on a camping trip with his peers, he instead ran away and sent his
`
`parents a text stating that he was now sixteen years old and could live on his own. D.F.
`
`was eventually found six hours later after a frantic search involving police and a private
`
`investigator.
`
`17. D.F. was high when he was found and expressed no remorse or concern for his actions.
`
`He was taken to Elements the next day.
`
`Elements
`
`18. D.F. was admitted to Elements on September 18, 2019.
`
`19. In a letter dated May 6, 2020, Anthem denied payment for D.F.’s treatment at Elements.
`
`The letter gave the following justification for the denial:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.6 Page 5 of 19
`
`As Stated in your Member Benefit Agreement in the section What Is Not Covered
`page 118 subsection Residential accommodations it states, Residential
`accommodations to treat medical or behavioral health conditions, except when
`provided in a Hospital, Hospice, Skilled Nursing Facility, or Residential
`Treatment Center. This Exclusion includes procedures, equipment, services,
`supplies or charges for the following: Wilderness camps. Therefore request for
`authorization for Mental Health Residential level of care has been excluded from
`coverage.
`
`20. On October 19, 2020, David submitted a level one appeal of the denial of payment for
`
`D.F.’s treatment. David reminded Anthem of its ERISA obligations during the appeal
`
`process, including its responsibility to provide him with a full, fair, and thorough review
`
`using appropriately qualified reviewers, which took into account all of the information he
`
`provided, gave him the specific reason(s) for the adverse determination, referenced the
`
`specific plan provisions on which the decision was based, and which gave him the
`
`information necessary to perfect the claim.
`
`21. He stated that D.F.’s treatment was a covered benefit under the terms of the insurance
`
`policy. He quoted from the Mental Health and Substance Abuse (Chemical Dependency)
`
`Services section of the insurance plan and pointed out that coverage was available for
`
`“other Providers who are licensed health care professionals acting within the scope of
`
`their license.”
`
`22. He wrote that in addition, Elements met the Plan’s definition of a “provider” as it was
`
`licensed by the State of Utah and operated according to Utah state regulations.
`
`23. He did note that there was a listed exclusion for “Wilderness camps” but disputed that
`
`this description applied to the outdoor behavioral health treatment provided at Elements.
`
`He also noted that this exclusion did not apply to individuals suffering from “Serious
`
`Emotional Disturbances of a Child (SED)” and that California state law required Anthem
`
`to provide coverage for treatment of D.F.’s conditions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.7 Page 6 of 19
`
`24. David argued that D.F.’s treatment at Elements qualified for coverage under the language
`
`of the California Welfare and Institutions Code which stated in part:
`
`“Seriously emotionally disturbed children or adolescents” means minors under the
`age of 18 years who have a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition
`of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, other than a
`primary substance use disorder or developmental disorder, which results in
`behavior inappropriate to the child’s age according to expected developmental
`norms. Members of this target population shall meet one or more of the following
`criteria:
`
`(A) As a result of the mental disorder, the child has substantial impairment in at
`least two of the following areas: self-care, school functioning, family
`relationships, or ability to function in the community; and either of the
`following occur:
`(i)
`The child is at risk of removal from home or has already been
`removed from home.
`The mental disorder and impairments have been present for more than
`six months or are likely to continue for more than one year without
`treatment.
`
`(ii)
`
`
`25. David contended that Anthem’s denial was a violation of MHPAEA. He pointed out that
`
`MHPAEA required insurers to offer coverage for behavioral health services “at parity”
`
`with those offered for analogous medical or surgical services.
`
`26. David stated that skilled nursing, inpatient rehabilitation, and inpatient hospice facilities
`
`were the appropriate medical or surgical analogues to the treatment D.F. received.
`
`27. David alleged that Anthem was violating MHPAEA by imposing treatment limitations
`
`such as restrictions based on geographic location and facility type. David cited to a case,
`
`Michael D. v Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, in which the court found that the
`
`exclusion for “wilderness camp” was ambiguous and could not properly be applied to
`
`outdoor behavioral healthcare.
`
`28. David argued that Anthem could not classify Elements as an excluded “wilderness camp”
`
`without defining the term. Nor could it discriminate against mental health services when
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.8 Page 7 of 19
`
`it did not do so with analogous medical or surgical services. He also encouraged it to
`
`reach out to Dr. Michael Gass, an expert in the field of outdoor behavioral health.
`
`29. He asked Anthem to utilize reviewers with training concerning MHPAEA to evaluate the
`
`claim and to perform a MHPAEA compliance analysis on the Plan and to provide him
`
`with physical copies of the results of this analysis. He also requested to be provided with
`
`the documents under which the Plan was operated.
`
`30. In a letter dated December 7, 2020, Anthem upheld the denial of payment for D.F.’s
`
`treatment. The reviewer wrote that wilderness programs were an excluded service and
`
`were therefore not a covered benefit under the terms of the insurance policy. The
`
`reviewer stated that D.F.’s diagnosis of Dysthymic Disorder did not qualify as a severe
`
`mental illness.
`
`31. The reviewer quoted the definition of a residential treatment center/facility in the
`
`insurance policy and stated that Elements did not meet this definition and was therefore
`
`not covered.
`
`32. The reviewer denied David’s assertion that the denial of payment violated MHPAEA. the
`
`reviewer wrote that Anthem did treat residential treatment centers the same as all other
`
`level of care and was not holding them to a stricter standard. The reviewer then reiterated
`
`that Elements was not a residential treatment center.
`
`Catalyst
`
`33. D.F. was admitted to Catalyst on November 13, 2019.
`
`34. In a letter dated November 15, 2019, Anthem denied payment for D.F.’s treatment at
`
`Catalyst. The letter gave the following justification for the denial:
`
`The request tells us you went to a residential treatment center for your mental
`health condition. The plan clinical criteria considers [sic] residential treatment
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.9 Page 8 of 19
`
`medically necessary for those who are a danger to themselves or others (as shown
`by hearing voices telling them to harm themselves or others or persistent thoughts
`of harm that cannot be managed at a lower level of care). This service can also be
`medically necessary for those who have a mental health condition that is causing
`serious problems with functioning. (For example, being impulsive or abusive,
`very poor self care, not sleeping or eating, avoidance of personal interactions, or
`unable to perform usual obligations). In addition, the person must be willing to
`stay and participate and is expected to either improve with this care or to keep
`from getting worse. The information we have does not show: you are a danger to
`yourself or others, or that you are having serious problems functioning. For this
`reason, the request is denied as not medically necessary. There may be other
`treatment options to help you, such as outpatient services. You may want to
`discuss these with your doctor. It may help your doctor to know we reviewed the
`request using the MCG guideline Residential Behavioral Health Level of Care,
`Child or Adolescent (ORG: B-902-RES).
`
`35. On May 1, 2020, David submitted a level one appeal of the denial of payment for D.F.’s
`
`treatment. He asked that all of the dates of D.F.’s treatment be reviewed. He asked
`
`Anthem to respect his rights under ERISA for a full, fair, and thorough review. He
`
`pointed out that Anthem’s claim of discretionary authority was superseded by California
`
`state law and argued that Anthem was required to act in his best interest.
`
`36. David wrote that D.F. had made significant progress while in treatment at Catalyst and
`
`that without the treatment he received there it was likely that he would have ended up
`
`dead due to his substance use, mental health conditions, and suicidal ideation.
`
`37. David included letters of medical necessity with the appeal. In a letter dated February 6,
`
`2020, Dr. Jason Bromberg MD, FAAP, wrote in part:
`
`I was recently made aware that [D.F.] has been in a rehabilitation boarding school
`and appears to be doing very well. I spoke with Mrs. [F.] who is so pleased with
`his progress. I believe VERY strongly that [D.F.] needs to continue in this
`boarding school. My fear is that, without the proper education and therapy that
`this specific school is supplying, [D.F.] will go back to doing the dangerous acts
`he has done in the past. For that reason, I believe it is a medical necessity that
`[D.F.] stay in the current rehabilitation boarding school he is enrolled in.
`(emphasis in original)
`
`In a letter dated January 31, 2020, Peter Stuart MA, LMFT wrote in part:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.10 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`I am an Educational Consultant and Therapist based in Austin, Texas and also
`licensed in California. In my professional duties as an Educational Consultant I
`help families determine the best course of treatment for their children who are
`struggling with mental health and substance issues sufficient to indicate that they
`need a placement out of home.
`
` I
`
` have worked with the [F.] family and [D.F.] for the past several months. The
`family first contacted me prior to [D.F.] going to a wilderness therapy program in
`Utah called Elements. I worked with the family and the staff at Elements to help
`determine what environment [D.F.] might benefit from for school after his time at
`Wilderness therapy.
`
`We, as a team, determined that [D.F.] would be in danger of behavioral and
`substance related relapses were he to return home. Therefore we recommended
`that he would benefit from a therapeutic boarding school such as Catalyst. The
`firm boundaries, substance use testing and academic support are all important for
`[D.F.]’s continued success.
`
`Stephen Pritt LCSW, wrote in a letter dated January 31, 2020:
`
`
`I have worked with [D.F.] as his primary therapist at Catalyst located in Brigham
`City Utah since November 13, 2019. …
`
`In my clinical opinion due to the severity and persistence of [D.F.]’s ADHD,
`substance abuse, and unstable home environment, require [sic] [D.F.] to continue
`a residential level of care to achieve significant and lasting improvement.
`
`38. David wrote that discharging D.F. prematurely would have been a grave mistake and
`
`would have set him up for failure, especially given D.F.’s history of substance use while
`
`living at home. He wrote that it was the opinion of all of D.F.’s treatment providers that
`
`D.F. required the level of care he was receiving at Catalyst. He asked Anthem to explain
`
`what basis it had to disagree with the clinical professionals who had worked with D.F. on
`
`a firsthand basis and who had actively witnessed the deterioration of his conditions.
`
`39. David contended that the proprietary criteria applied by Anthem to evaluate the medical
`
`necessity of D.F.’s treatment, the MCG guidelines, violated generally accepted standards
`
`of medical practice.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.11 Page 10 of 19
`
`40. David argued that Anthem could not choose to ignore the terms of the insurance policy
`
`and rely on the MCG guidelines as the sole basis for denying payment. He asked the
`
`reviewer to rely on the Plan’s definition of medical necessity as well as generally
`
`accepted standards of medical practice to determine if treatment was necessary, not the
`
`MCG criteria.
`
`41. David argued that Anthem minimized the severity of D.F.’s treatment through the use of
`
`phrases such as, “you went to a residential treatment center for your mental health
`
`condition.” He reminded Anthem that D.F. had attempted treatment in lower levels of
`
`care but they had not been sufficient to effectively address his mental health and
`
`substance use concerns.
`
`42. He contended that the medical necessity criteria used by Anthem overemphasized acuity
`
`and crisis stabilization. He quoted the criteria for admission to a residential treatment
`
`center and noted that admission to a residential treatment facility listed factors such as
`
`“Danger to self for child or adolescent” or “Danger to others for child or adolescent” as
`
`prerequisites for admission.
`
`43. He argued that this barrier artificially restricted the availability of residential treatment
`
`care, especially given the fact that if an individual was manifesting these symptoms and
`
`was sent to a residential treatment center, they would instead be transferred to a higher
`
`level of care which was better equipped to deal with these types of symptoms. He also
`
`noted that acute care was intended for short-term crisis stabilization, not lasting treatment
`
`of the patient’s underlying conditions.
`
`44. He pointed out that Anthem’s denial was predicated on a lack of danger to self or others
`
`and contended that this was another example of a violation of MHPAEA. He reiterated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.12 Page 11 of 19
`
`that MHPAEA prohibited insurers from placing restrictions on mental health care which
`
`were not equally applied to analogous medical or surgical services.
`
`45. He stated that upon examining Anthem’s criteria for skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and
`
`inpatient hospice facilities, he was unable to find any instance of Anthem imposing acute
`
`level requirements to qualify for a subacute level of care, nor did its criteria impose other
`
`restrictions equivalent to those placed on D.F.’s mental health treatment.
`
`46. David asked Anthem to explain why his plan was noncompliant with MHPAEA or in the
`
`event that he was mistaken, to provide a detailed explanation of how the Plan was
`
`compliant with MHPAEA despite all appearances to the contrary.
`
`47. In a letter dated June 23, 2020, Anthem upheld the denial of payment for D.F.’s
`
`treatment. The reviewer wrote that D.F. was “not at risk for serious harm from
`
`withdrawals that you needed 24 hour care.” She wrote that while the first letter only
`
`addressed the first seven days of treatment, those were the seven days that the initial
`
`reviewer was able to evaluate at the time. The letter also stated that the review was a
`
`“chart only” review as they were unable to contact Catalyst.
`
`48. She stated that the entire case file was reviewed and that both reviewers who had
`
`evaluated the claim were board certified in psychiatry. She contested David’s assertion
`
`that the denial violated MHPAEA and stated that Anthem treated all residential treatment
`
`centers the same as other intermediate levels of care.
`
`49. The reviewer wrote that the reviewer’s decision was rendered based on individual clinical
`
`information and MCG Guidelines.
`
`50. The reviewer responded to David’s contention that the MCG criteria overemphasized
`
`acuity and crisis stabilization by stating that:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.13 Page 12 of 19
`
`Residential Treatment Care (RTC) is meant to provide rapid stabilization of acute
`symptoms necessitating 24-hour care. Danger to self may refer to acute
`psychiatric symptoms and not necessarily an imminent danger or threat to self or
`others. In addition, you can be free of danger to self or others and still meet the
`RTC criteria due to moderate to severe psychiatric, behavioral or other comorbid
`conditions that require 24-hour care.
`
`51. The reviewer wrote that non-quantitative treatment limitations were not imposed when
`
`medical necessity determinations were made, and that the health plan had been reviewed
`
`many times by regulatory and legal oversight bodies. She stated that the expectation that
`
`an individual be treated at least restrictive level of care that was safe and effective was
`
`true of behavioral health as well as physical health conditions.
`
`52. The reviewer wrote that Anthem treated residential treatment facilities the same as skilled
`
`nursing facilities and that neither was meant for long-term care. She argued that D.F. was
`
`not at risk for serious harm and did not require 24 hour care.
`
`53. The Plaintiffs exhausted their pre-litigation appeal obligations under the terms of the Plan
`
`and ERISA.
`
`54. The denial of benefits for D.F.’s treatment was a breach of contract and caused David to
`
`incur medical expenses that should have been paid by the Plan in an amount totaling over
`
`$90,000.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Claim for Recovery of Benefits Under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B))
`
`55. ERISA imposes higher-than-marketplace quality standards on insurers and plan
`
`administrators. It sets forth a special standard of care upon plan fiduciaries such as
`
`Anthem, acting as agent of the Plan, to discharge its duties in respect to claims processing
`
`solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. 29 U.S.C.
`
`§1104(a)(1).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.14 Page 13 of 19
`
`56. Anthem and the Plan failed to provide coverage for D.F.’s treatment in violation of the
`
`express terms of the Plan, which promise benefits to employees and their dependents for
`
`medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders.
`
`57. ERISA also underscores the particular importance of accurate claims processing and
`
`evaluation by requiring that administrators provide a “full and fair review” of claim
`
`denials and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Plaintiffs in the pre-litigation
`
`appeal process. 29 U.S.C. §1133(2).
`
`58. Anthem and the agents of the Plan breached their fiduciary duties to D.F. when they
`
`failed to comply with their obligations under 29 U.S.C. §1104 and 29 U.S.C. §1133 to act
`
`solely in D.F.’s interest and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to ERISA
`
`participants and beneficiaries and to provide a full and fair review of D.F.’s claims.
`
`59. The actions of Anthem and the Plan in failing to provide coverage for D.F.’s medically
`
`necessary treatment are a violation of the terms of the Plan and its medical necessity
`
`criteria.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Claim for Violation of MHPAEA Under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(3))
`
`60. MHPAEA is incorporated into ERISA and is enforceable by ERISA participants and
`
`beneficiaries as a requirement of both ERISA and MHPAEA. The obligation to comply
`
`with both ERISA and MHPAEA is part of Anthem’s fiduciary duties.
`
`61. Generally speaking, MHPAEA requires ERISA plans to provide no less generous
`
`coverage for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders than they provide for
`
`treatment of medical/surgical disorders.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.15 Page 14 of 19
`
`62. MHPAEA prohibits ERISA plans from imposing treatment limitations on mental health
`
`or substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the predominant
`
`treatment limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits and also
`
`makes illegal separate treatment limitations that are applicable only with respect to
`
`mental health or substance use disorder benefits. 29 U.S.C.§1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii).
`
`63. Impermissible nonquantitative treatment limitations under MHPAEA include, but are not
`
`limited to, medical management standards limiting or excluding benefits based on
`
`medical necessity; refusal to pay for higher-cost treatment until it can be shown that a
`
`lower-cost treatment is not effective; and restrictions based on geographic location,
`
`facility type, provider specialty, or other criteria that limit the scope or duration of
`
`benefits for mental health or substance use disorder treatment. 29 C.F.R.
`
`§2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(A), (F), and (H).
`
`64. The explicit language of the SPD, one of the governing plan documents, state that in
`
`order for treatment to be medically necessary it must, among other things, be offered
`
`“in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice.”
`
`65. The medical necessity criteria used by Anthem for the intermediate level mental health
`
`treatment benefits at issue in this case are more stringent or restrictive than allowed by
`
`generally accepted standards of medical practice, as well as the medical necessity criteria
`
`the Plan applies to analogous intermediate levels of medical or surgical benefits.
`
`66. Comparable benefits offered by the Plan for medical/surgical treatment analogous to the
`
`benefits the Plan excluded for D.F.’s treatment include sub-acute inpatient treatment
`
`settings such as skilled nursing facilities, inpatient hospice care, and rehabilitation
`
`facilities.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.16 Page 15 of 19
`
`67. For none of these types of treatment does Anthem exclude or restrict coverage of
`
`medical/surgical conditions by imposing restrictions such as an acute care requirement
`
`for a sub-acute level of care. To do so, would violate not only the terms of the insurance
`
`contract, but also generally accepted standards of medical practice.
`
`68. When Anthem and the Plan receive claims for intermediate level treatment of medical
`
`and surgical conditions, they provide benefits and pay the claims as outlined in the terms
`
`of the Plan based on generally accepted standards of medical practice.
`
`69. Anthem and the Plan evaluated D.F.’s mental health claims using medical necessity
`
`criteria that deviate from generally accepted standards of medical practice. This process
`
`resulted in a disparity because the Plan denied coverage for mental health benefits when
`
`the analogous levels of medical or surgical benefits would have been paid.
`
`70. As an example of disparate application of medical necessity criteria between
`
`medical/surgical and mental health treatment, Anthem’s reviewers improperly utilized
`
`acute medical necessity criteria to evaluate the non-acute treatment that D.F. received.
`
`Anthem’s improper use of acute inpatient medical necessity criteria is revealed in the
`
`statements in Anthem’s denial letters such as:
`
` “The plan clinical criteria considers [sic] residential treatment medically
`necessary for those who are a danger to themselves or others (as shown by
`hearing voices telling them to harm themselves or others or persistent thoughts of
`harm that cannot be managed at a lower level of care).
`
`71. This improper use of acute inpatient criteria was a nonquantitative treatment limitation
`
`that cannot permissibly be applied to evaluate the sub-acute level of care that D.F.
`
`received.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.17 Page 16 of 19
`
`72. The Plan does not require individuals receiving treatment at sub-acute inpatient facilities
`
`for medical/surgical conditions to satisfy acute medical necessity criteria in order to
`
`receive Plan benefits.
`
`73. The treatment provided in an acute care environment is necessarily distinct from
`
`treatment provided in a non-acute environment. Utilizing acute criteria to evaluate a non-
`
`acute claim will result in a near universal denial of benefits, regardless of the medical
`
`necessity, clinical appropriateness, or nature of the treatment.
`
`74. The Defendant cannot and will not deny that use of acute care criteria, either on its face
`
`or in application, to evaluate sub-acute treatment violates generally accepted standards
`
`of medical practice. They must and do acknowledge that they adhere to generally
`
`accepted standards of medical practice when they evaluate the medical necessity of both
`
`mental health/substance use disorder treatment and the medical necessity of treatment
`
`for medical/surgical conditions.
`
`75. Anthem’s reviewer made a brief attempt to address this allegation by stating that the
`
`word acute “may” refer to acute level psychiatric symptoms and that regardless there
`
`were other ways to qualify for treatment such as in the case of an individual who was
`
`refusing to eat or sleep.
`
`76. While Anthem’s reviewer states that acute “may” have different meanings, and while in
`
`some cases, this may be true, Anthem’s denial letters clearly state that the “information
`
`we have does not show: you are a danger to yourself or others.” Thus, regardless of how
`
`the term acute may be interpreted, Anthem provides clear context of how it was
`
`interpreted in this case, and that is a requirement of danger to self or others.
`
`//
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00339-JCB Document 2 Filed 05/19/22 PageID.18 Page 17 of 19
`
`77. David contended that he had examined the criteria for residential treatment and its
`
`medical or surgical analogues and wrote that the requirements for residential treatment
`
`services were significantly stricter than the criteria for analogous medical or surgical
`
`care.
`
`78. Anthem’s final denial letter reveals additional restrictions placed on residential treatment
`
`such as its contention that residential treatment is “meant to provide rapid stabilization of
`
`acute symptoms necessitating 24-hour care” and that residential treatment is not meant
`
`for “long-term” care.
`
`79. This limitation to a short-term timeframe is not disclosed in the terms of the insurance
`
`policy. Anthem’s letter alleged that it similarly restricts skilled nursing care and other
`
`services in this manner. Inasmuch as this restriction only or primarily applies to
`
`residential treatment, it is a violation of MHPAEA. Inasmuch as it applies to other care
`
`modalities it is also a breach of the terms of the insurance policy as it is a hidden
`
`restriction put into place to artificially restrict the length of care that will be approved
`
`without specifying in the terms of the insurance contract that any such limitations are
`
`applied.
`
`80. Regarding

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket