Brazil

Brazil v. Office of Personnel Management

Good Law
35 F. Supp. 3d 1101·2014 WL 1309935·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44856
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2014Case No. 12-cv-02898-WHOCalifornia6,585 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Amelia Byrnes Brazil received medically necessary mental health treatment at a residential facility. Her federal health insurance plan denied coverage because the plan excluded coverage for residential treatment centers, and so she is seeking redress here. Both California and the United States have passed mental health parity laws requiring that treatment limitations for mental health benefits are no more restrictive than those for medical and surgical benefits, but federal law excludes federal insurance plans from their scope. The question I must decide is whether Brazil can overcome" defendant Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) assertions of sovereign immunity and preemption in order to address the merits of her claim. Because federal law does not allow the relief Brazil seeks, her motion for summary judgment is DENIED and OPM’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At all times relevant in this matter, Brazil was enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan (the “Plan”). OPM0002; Opp’n (Dkt. No. 51) 2.…

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.