Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Arizona, Inc.

Good Law
770 F.3d 1282·59 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1001·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21132
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 5, 201412-17604California6,716 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Defendant United Healthcare (“United”) is the claims administrator for as many as forty-four defendant health plans (the “Plans”; collectively with United, “Defendants”). For most but not all of the Plans, United insures plan benefits. All of the Plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

As assignee and would-be assignee of Plan beneficiaries, health care provider Spinedex filed suit against United and the Plans seeking payment of denied benefit claims. The Arizona Chiropractic Society (“ACS”), as well as individual Plan beneficiaries Jack Adams and Claude Aragon, joined the suit as plaintiffs in an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged improper denials of benefits as well as breaches of fiduciary duty.

The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding, inter alia, that Spinedex lacked Article III standing to bring claims as an assignee. We reverse in part, affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. We hold that Spinedex had Article III standing as assignee of Plan beneficiaries to bring claims for payment of benefits. We' hold, further, (1) that Spinedex was not assigned the right to bring…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.