Federal Appeals Court Backs Air-Ambulance Firm in 'PIP' Fight
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the air-ambulance firm, Air Methods Corp., should be able to bill the father of accident victim Lemar Bailey for costs that exceeded limits in the state's no-fault system.
May 11, 2018 at 12:23 PM
5 minute read
In a case stemming from a child getting rushed to a hospital after a traffic accident, a federal appeals court backed an air-ambulance firm in a dispute about whether the amount paid for helicopter services should be limited by Florida's no-fault auto insurance law.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the air-ambulance firm, Air Methods Corp., should be able to bill the father of accident victim Lemar Bailey for costs that exceeded limits in the state's no-fault system.
The ruling, which upheld a lower court decision, said a federal airline deregulation law bars states from restricting prices charged by air carriers. The air-ambulance firm is considered an air carrier under federal law.
Florida's no-fault system requires motorists to carry $10,000 in personal-injury protection, or PIP, coverage to help pay for medical expenses after accidents. As part of the system, medical costs were billed in the Bailey case under a schedule of fees. In such circumstances, medical providers typically are prevented from billing insurance policyholders for excess amounts, an issue known in the insurance and health-care worlds as “balance billing.”
The appeals court Tuesday said the Bailey case “squeezes down into the question whether the balance billing provision, which reduces as a matter of law the contract price of medical services rendered to PIP-insured patients, relates to the prices an air carrier can charge for its services. We are without doubt on this front. The balance billing provision … has a significant effect on air carrier prices.”
“Florida law requires an emergency ambulance provider to transport individuals in need of immediate medical attention,” said the 28-page ruling, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judges Julie Carnes and Michael Melloy. “In return for this service, Florida law gives such providers a legal entitlement to a reasonable fee. Through the balance billing provision, Bailey has attempted to reduce the contract price from a reasonable fee to an amount specified in a fee schedule, all because of his privately negotiated arrangements with an automobile insurance company. The ambulance provider has no notice of such arrangements prior to rendering service. It could not deny service even if it did. In this case, however, the ambulance provider happens to be an air carrier under federal law. The state-imposed restriction on price thus cannot be enforced.”
The dispute stems from a March 2013 accident in which Lemar Bailey was ejected from a vehicle in Martin County, according court records. He was flown by helicopter to St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach and died soon after arrival.
Air Methods Corp., which operated the air ambulance from 2:30 p.m. to 4:04 p.m., billed $27,975 for its services, Tuesday's ruling said. The child's father, Lenworth Bailey, was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., which paid $6,911 under the fee schedule. Bailey then submitted the bill to his health insurer, Aetna Life Insurance Co., which paid another $3,681.
That left a remaining balance of nearly $17,400, which Bailey did not pay. He filed a potential class-action lawsuit alleging that Air Methods Corp. was trying to improperly collect amounts in excess of the fee schedule, the ruling said.
But U.S. District Judge William Zloch in September 2015 ruled in favor of the air-ambulance firm, which led Bailey to take the case to the Atlanta-based appeals court.
In a brief filed in November 2015, Bailey's attorneys accused the air-ambulance company of “serial violations” of the PIP law.
“The allowed reimbursement amount for emergency transport service is set forth with particularity in the PIP statute,” the brief said. “The PIP statute authorizes insurers to limit payment in accordance with the fee schedule set forth therein. Once a PIP insurer limits payment for such services in accordance with the fee schedule, an emergency transportation provider is prohibited from billing or collecting from the patient any amounts other than the PIP coinsurance amount or any amount not paid due to exhaustion of PIP benefits.”
But the appeals court Tuesday rejected such arguments, based largely on the federal law known as Airline Deregulation Act.
“An emergency provider, such as AMC [Air Methods Corp.], oftentimes has no notice of insurance arrangements before rendering service,” the ruling said. “Even if it did, Florida law prohibits an emergency medical provider from denying service due to a patient's ability to pay. Therefore, the balance billing provision, which prohibits medical providers from charging in excess of the fee schedule amount, operates as a 'state-imposed regulation' on air carrier rates. The ADA [Airline Deregulation Act] preempts the application of the balance billing provision to air carriers.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250