MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, 1:22-cv-01238

Suit under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) by assignee MSP Recovery Claims Series 44 (Series 44) seeking reimbursement for conditional payments made by an MAO (Health Alliance Medical Plans, HEAL).
Series 44 alleges HEAL assigned its recovery rights to MSP (and then to Series 44) for a beneficiary (J.M.) injured on October 20, 2018 whose accident-related treatment was conditionally paid by HEAL.
IDS issued a no-fault policy covering J.M.’s accident, filed a Section 111 report with CMS admitting primary-payer responsibility, but allegedly failed to reimburse HEAL for conditional payments (medical billings totaled $456.88; HEAL paid $189.78).
MSP seeks statutory reimbursement under the MSP Act, plus declaratory relief and equitable accounting; IDS moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
IDS’s dismissal arguments: (1) MSP lacks standing/was not validly assigned reimbursement rights; (2) MSP failed to allege an injury-in-fact (no illustrative beneficiary/unreimbursed payment); (3) claim is time-barred; (4) equitable accounting/declaratory relief not adequately pleaded.
Decision: Court denied IDS’s motion to dismiss; found MSP’s assignment and injury allegations sufficient at the pleading stage and declined to resolve statute-of-limitations or accounting adequacy without discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / scope of assignment	MSP alleges HEAL assigned its recovery rights and provided claims data for J.M.; MSP only pursues assigned claims.	IDS says assignments not attached/terms not pled so MSP can’t show it holds the right to sue.	Court: Accepting pleadings, MSP sufficiently alleged assignment and standing to pursue reimbursement.
Injury-in-fact (concrete right to collect)	MSP identifies J.M., the dates of service, amounts billed/paid by HEAL and IDS’s Section 111 report admitting primary responsibility.	IDS contends MSP failed to identify an unreimbursed payment/illustrative beneficiary necessary to show a concrete injury.	Court: MSP adequately pleaded an unreimbursed conditional payment and a concrete right to collect.
Statute of limitations / accrual	MSP argues dismissal premature; claim accrual and tolling disputed.	IDS argues claim is time-barred and accrual is clear.	Court: Statute-of-limitations is an affirmative defense; factual accrual dispute makes dismissal inappropriate at this stage.
Declaratory relief / equitable accounting	MSP seeks accounting to identify recoverable conditional payments tied to IDS’s Section 111 reports.	IDS says accounting is equitable relief only when no adequate legal remedy and must be pled with specificity.	Court: Premature to dismiss accounting claim; may be resolved after discovery or on summary judgment.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulates Article III standing requirements)
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2021) (injury for MSP suits is an unreimbursed payment—concrete right to collect)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level; plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly plausibility at motion to dismiss)
Schaefer v. Transp. Media, Inc., 859 F.2d 1251 (7th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction on 12(b)(1))
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional facts proved by preponderance of evidence)
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff may not merely parrot statutory language to state a claim)
Chatman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 5 F.4th 738 (7th Cir. 2021) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense burdening defendant)
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) (equitable accounting is proper only when no adequate remedy at law and accounts are complex)