Tomlinson

Tomlinson v. United Behavioral Health

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 2, 20203:19-cv-06999California2,760 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SANDRA TOMLINSON, et al., 5 Case No. 19-cv-06999-RS (JCS) Plaintiffs, 6 v. ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 7 LETTER

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,

8 Re: Dkt. No. 49 Defendant. 9

10 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 This case is brought by Sandra Tomlinson on behalf of her minor child based on denial of 13 coverage for residential treatment by United Behavioral Health (“UBH”) under its 2017 Level of 14 Care Guidelines (“2017 Guidelines”). Although the undersigned magistrate judge found in Case 15 No. 14-cv-02346 (“Wit”) and related case 14-cv-05337 (“Alexander”) that the 2017 Guidelines 16 were inconsistent with the health benefits plans of the plaintiffs in those cases, the classes that 17 were certified in Wit and Alexander had a cut-off date of June 1, 2017. According to Plaintiff, 18 this action is brought on behalf of individuals whose requests for benefits were denied under 19 UBH’s 2017 Guidelines after the class cut-off date…

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.