THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY D/B/A JEFFERSON HEALTH v. AETNA HEALTH INC.

Aug 5, 2026

5:26-cv-02215

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5^th day of August, 2026, upon consideration of the Motion of the American Hospital Association and the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 33), the Brief in Support of the Motion of the American Hospital Association and the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 33-1), and Defendant’s Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the American Hospital Association’s and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amici Curiae (ECF No. 39), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED.¹

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to DOCKET ECF No. 33-2 as “Brief of Amici Curiae American Hospital Association and the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration.”

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John M. Gallagher

JOHN M. GALLAGHER

United States District Court Judge

Notes

As explained in more detail in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, the Court grants the Motion of the American Hospital Association (“AHA”) and the Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania (“HAP”) for leave to file a brief as amici curiae. AHA and HAP have demonstrated a substantial and legitimate interest in the issues raised by Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. They assert that the Motion to Compel Arbitration implicates nationwide insurer policies affecting hospital reimbursement practices and operational structures across the healthcare industry, interests that extend beyond the immediate parties and fall squarely within the AHA and HAP’s institutional expertise. The request is also timely, and the Court is persuaded that consideration of the proposed brief will not delay the proceedings or prejudice either party. AHA and HAP further represent that they have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of this litigation, and the Court finds no indication that the submission is offered for an improper purpose. Rather, the proposed brief will assist the Court by providing additional context regarding the practical consequences of compelling arbitration in this setting.