Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
Decision date
18 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld

Case analisys

General Summary

The plaintiff was a medical practice that served patients insured by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that it had submitted invoices to the defendant for Covid-19 tests administered to its insured patients, but the defendant had declined to pay. The plaintiff then filed an action on behalf of those patients for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court analyzed both parties’ arguments and denied the motion to dismiss on grounds that the interpretation of the statutory law led to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a claim based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Families First Act.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff was a medical practice that provided Covid-19 testing to the Defendant’s insured patients, among other medical services. The Plaintiff submitted invoices to the Defendant for Covid-19 tests, totaling at least $1,522,644, claiming that the patients receiving these tests did so pursuant to their medical insurance plans. However, the Defendant declined to pay the Plaintiff for these services because the services were purportedly (1) not rendered as billed, (2) did not match the services billed, or (3) because the billing was duplicative. The Plaintiff argued these reasons were invalid and, on behalf of the patients, filed the claim against Defendant.

Type of measure challenged
Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Damages
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a qualified entity in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of collective redress measures such as damages or restitutions and annulment of the administrative decision.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Private individual
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the arguments of the Plaintiff and the Defendant and reasoned that:

  1. The Facial-plausibility standard was met when the plaintiff plead factual content that allowed the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant was liable for the misconduct alleged.
  2. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act provided a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans, including health insurance plans and provided that “[a] civil action may be brought … by a participant or beneficiary ... to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan.”
  3. Federal law required health insurers to cover Covid-19 testing and this legal obligation was incorporated as a term of the plan, enforceable by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
  4. The Families First Act stated that “group health plans” “shall provide coverage” for Covid-19 testing, and that the “group health plan” had the same meaning as in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. By using the term “group health plan” Congress clearly conveyed that it was imposing obligations on the plans, not just on regulated entities in some more general sense.
  5. Finally, Congress mandated that health insurance plans cover Covid-19 testing, raising it to the status of a benefit of those plans. Congress also allowed the insured to sue for benefits due to them. It therefore stood to reason that the insured could sue under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when an insurer denied coverage for Covid-19 testing.
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the Defendant’s claims did not stand in the face of statutory law and the Plaintiff had sufficiently shown their claim. The motion to dismiss was thus denied.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Marco Nicolò on 26 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies