History
  • No items yet
midpage
985 F. Supp. 2d 262
D. Conn.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • UnitedHealthcare notified ~2,200 Connecticut physicians in Oct. 2013 that it was removing them from its Medicare Advantage network effective Feb. 1, 2014; notices characterized the change as an "amendment" but, for appeal purposes, as a "termination without cause."
  • Most physicians participate under a standard Physician Contract containing: (a) an amendment clause permitting unilateral changes with 90 days’ notice; (b) a termination-without-cause clause tying effective date to the contract anniversary and requiring certified-mail notice; and (c) an arbitration/appeal procedure in the Administrative Guide.
  • Associations (Fairfield and Hartford County Medical Associations) sued asserting violations of the Medicare Act's procedural protections for physician termination and breach of contract under Connecticut law; they sought a TRO/preliminary injunction to (1) halt terminations, (2) stop notifying enrollees, and (3) require inclusion of affected physicians in 2014 directories.
  • United argued it could unilaterally amend plan participation under the amendment clause, asserted arbitration obligations, and raised jurisdictional/standing and preemption/exhaustion defenses.
  • The court found federal-question jurisdiction proper, the Associations had associational standing, no administrative-exhaustion requirement applied, and arbitration is required for individual members but does not bar injunctive relief in aid of arbitration.
  • The court concluded the Associations showed irreparable harm (reputational loss, disruption of physician-patient relationships, loss of market share) and a likelihood of success on breach-of-contract claims, and granted a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo pending merits.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether United could unilaterally remove physicians from Medicare Advantage by "amendment" The notices are terminations of Medicare participation subject to the contract’s termination clause and Medicare procedural protections United may amend Appendix 2 to change plan participation with 90 days’ notice and no signature Court: Likely breach of contract by United; the amendment characterization cannot override termination protections for Medicare participation
Whether federal court has jurisdiction and plaintiffs have standing Federal question under Medicare Act; Associations meet associational-standing test United contended lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing Court: Federal-question jurisdiction proper; Associations have associational standing
Whether plaintiffs must exhaust CMS/federal administrative remedies before suing No administrative forum exists for physician–insurer contract termination disputes; exhaustion not required United argued administrative exhaustion/preemption by Medicare regime Court: No exhaustion requirement; Medicare scheme does not preempt judicial review of these contract/termination claims
Whether arbitration clause bars injunctive relief Associations sought class/associational relief to preserve status quo pending individual appeals/arbitration United relied on arbitration clause requiring individual arbitration and said disputes must be arbitrated Court: Arbitration applies to individual members but does not preclude injunctive relief in aid of arbitration; injunction granted to preserve status quo pending merits

Key Cases Cited

  • Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal-question jurisdiction principles)
  • Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing test)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability for standing)
  • United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 388 U.S. 715 (supplemental jurisdiction/pendent state-law claims)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard/irreparable harm and balance of equities)
  • eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (injunctive-relief framework)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Fairfield County Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare
Court Name: District Court, D. Connecticut
Date Published: Dec 5, 2013
Citations: 985 F. Supp. 2d 262; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172930; 2013 WL 6334092; No. 3:13-cv-1621 (SRU)
Docket Number: No. 3:13-cv-1621 (SRU)
Court Abbreviation: D. Conn.
Log In
    Fairfield County Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare, 985 F. Supp. 2d 262