UnitedHealthcare Sued for Failure to Cover Autism Treatment
"This is exactly the sort of discrimination against mental health coverage that the Parity Act is supposed to eliminate," said Caroline Reynolds of Zuckerman Spaeder in Washington, D.C.
November 07, 2019 at 06:53 PM
3 minute read
The nation's largest health insurer is once again staring down accusations that it is discriminating against customers who seek coverage for mental health services.
The mother of a 13-year-old boy diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is suing UnitedHealthcare and its subsidiary United Behavioral Health on behalf of a potential class of policyholders whose self-funded plans exclude coverage of "Intensive Behavioral Therapy."
The intensive therapy exemption includes applied behavioral analysis (ABA), the foremost treatment for autism, according to the complaint filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The exemption contradicts an announcement UnitedHealthcare made in 2017, promising to extend its coverage of the therapy to all fully insured health plans.
The Jane Doe plaintiff alleges the exemption in her self-funded plan violates the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
"Categorically excluding coverage for ABA makes it harder if not impossible for autistic children to retain the form of treatment that has proven to be most effective for their condition, even though they have insurance that purports to cover autism," said plaintiffs counsel Caroline Reynolds of Zuckerman Spaeder in Washington, D.C. "This is exactly the sort of discrimination against mental health coverage that the Parity Act is supposed to eliminate."
Reynolds said she expects to prove in court that UBH is enforcing the exclusions because it helps increase or retain self-funded clients, who are companies that administer health benefits themselves instead of purchasing policies from insurers, which represent 70% of UBH's business.
A UnitedHealth representative did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Meiram Bendat of Psych-Appeal Inc. in West Hollywood, California, also represents Doe alongside Zuckerman Spaeder's Brian Hufford and Jason Cowart in New York and Rachel Cotton in Washington, D.C.
This isn't Psych-Appeal and Zuckerman Spaeder's first go at UnitedHealthcare. The duo earned a major victory in March when U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of California found the company emphasized cost-cutting in its guidelines for mental health and addiction coverage.
Doe is suing on claims of breach of fiduciary duty and asking the court to enjoin UBH and UnitedHealthcare from enforcing the intensive behavioral therapy exclusions.
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 AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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