E.S. v. Regence BlueShield

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 E.S., by and through her parents, R.S. and 11 J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their NO. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ own behalf and on behalf of all similarly 12 situated individuals, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 Plaintiffs, AND MOTION FOR 14 CERTIFICATION TO v. WASHINGTON STATE 15 SUPREME COURT REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and 16 CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., 17 f/k/a THE REGENCE GROUP, 18 Defendants. 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, 22 or in the alternative, Certification of Question to Washington State Supreme Court 23 (“Motion”). Dkt. # 71. With permission from the Court, Defendants filed a Response. 24 Dkt. # 76. The Court has considered the Motion, Defendants’ Response, the relevant 25 portions of the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES 26 the Motion. 27 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Motion for Reconsideration 3 Under Local Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will 4 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of “manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new 5 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier 6 with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). Manifest error is very 7 nearly synonymous with “clear error” under Ninth Circuit precedent. School Dist. No. 1J, 8 Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that 9 “[r]econsideration is appropriate” if “the district court committed clear error or the initial 10 decision was manifestly unjust”). 11 Plaintiffs assert that the Court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims under the 12 Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), the Washington Consumer 13 Protection Act (“CPA”), and state law claim for declaratory relief. Dkt. # 71. Plaintiffs do 14 not argue that this Court committed a manifest error or the initial decision was manifestly 15 unjust. Plaintiffs advance two arguments as to why the Court should reconsider its 16 decision, neither of which were addressed in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion 17 to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. See Dkt. # 60. 18 Plaintiffs’ arguments could have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with 19 reasonable diligence. LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiffs cite to caselaw and legislative authority 20 which could have been raised earlier. As discussed below, Plaintiffs have not presented 21 adequate grounds for reconsideration. 22 This Court did not commit manifest error by dismissing Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 23 This Court properly considered the plain language of WAC 284-43-5642(1)(b)(vii) and 24 determined that the regulation explicitly states that the coverage for “externally worn or 25 surgically implanted hearing aids” was not required by the essential benefits plan. See Dkt. 26 # 68 at 10-11. 27 1 Plaintiffs do not present new legal authority that would warrant reconsideration. 2 Plaintiffs have not identified federal rules or guidance implementing 42 U.S.C 1888, Sec. 3 1557 that would require coverage of the hearing aids at issue or change the plain language 4 of WAC 284-43-5642(1)(b)(vii). Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 5 Reconsideration. 6 B. Motion to Certify Question 7 8 Federal courts in Washington may certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court: 9 When in the opinion of [the] court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state 10 in order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not 11 been clearly determined, such federal court may certify to the supreme court for answer the question of local law involved 12 and the supreme court shall render its opinion in answer thereto. 13 14 Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020. “There is a presumption against certifying a question to a 15 state supreme court after the federal district court has issued a decision. A party should not 16 be allowed ‘a second chance at victory’ through certification by the appeals court after an 17 adverse district court ruling.” Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) 18 (quoting In re Complaint of McLinn, 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 1984)). Certification is 19 within the Court’s discretion. See Micomonaco v. State of Wash., 45 F.3d 316, 322 (9th 20 Cir. 1995). 21 Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following question: Does a health carrier’s 22 compliance with the essential health benefits benchmark benefit design under WAC 284- 23 43-5642(1)-(10) immunize it from liability under the Washington Law Against 24 Discrimination and the Washington Consumer Protection Act? Dkt. # 71 at 7-8. Plaintiffs 25 assert that the “issue of whether compliance with the EHB benchmark immunizes a carrier 26 from claims of disability discrimination has implications far beyond this case” because 27 1 “there are multiple ways the EHB benefit design could be read as discriminating against 2 classes of Washington insureds,” implicating a “critical state concern.” Id. at 7. 3 The Court acknowledges the importance of preventing discrimination in insurance 4 transactions. However, Plaintiffs only requested certification of the question after 5 receiving an adverse decision for the Court and have not overcome the presumption against 6 such post hoc requests for certification. See Thompson, 547 F.3d at 1065. Additionally, 7 as raised in Defendants’ Response, as of 2023, “Washington law now requires coverage 8 for hearing aids at a level of $3,000 per ear every three years,” thus this case mostly 9 concerns “damages rather than prospective coverage requirements.” See Dkt. # 76 at 8 10 (citing RCW 48.43.135; RCW 41.05.831). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request to certify a 11 question to the Washington Supreme Court is DENIED. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 14 Reconsideration. Dkt. # 71. 15 DATED this 17th day of May, 2024. 16

17 A 18 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 20 United States District Judge

24 25 26 27