J.R. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedApril 30, 2020
Docket2:18-cv-01191
StatusUnknown

This text of J.R. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois (J.R. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J.R. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Opinion

1 HON. JAMES L. ROBART

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 J.R., by and through his parents and guardians, Ju.R. and Ja.R., individually, on NO. 2:18-cv-01191-JLR 12 behalf of similarly situated individuals, AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER: 13 Plaintiff, (1) FINALLY APPROVING 14 v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF (2) APPROVING DISBURSEMENTS 15 ILLINOIS; CATHOLIC HEALTH PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT 16 INITIATIVES MEDICAL PLAN; and AGREEMENT; CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES, (3) APPROVING PAYMENT OF 17 Defendants. ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION 18 COSTS AND CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARD; 19 (4) ESTABLISHING A LATE CLAIM DEADLINE DUE TO COVID-19; 20 AND 21 (5) ORDERING FINAL REPORT ON DISBURSEMENT OF QUALIFIED 22 SETTLEMENT FUND 23 NOTED FOR HEARING: 24 April 15, 2020 25 26 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On November 25, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed Settlement 3 Agreement between Plaintiff on behalf of the Class and Defendants Catholic Health 4 Initiatives (now known as CommonSpirit Health and referred to herein as “CHI”), the 5 Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan (“the Plan”), and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 6 Illinois (“BCBSIL”), (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 60; Dkt. No. 61. In conjunction 7 with that Order, the Court directed CHI and the Plan to transmit the names and 8 addresses of the Class Notice Recipients located after a reasonable search to the Claims 9 Processor within 60 days of the entry of the Order. Dkt. No. 60, ¶4. In an amendment to 10 the initial Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement Agreement, the Court directed 11 the Claims Processor to mail the Class Notice and partially revised Claim Form Materials 12 (Dkt. No. 54-2; Dkt. 62-1) to the Class Notice Recipients within 20 days of receiving the 13 names and addresses of Class Notice Recipients from Defendants. Dkt. 60, ¶5; Dkt. 63, 14 ¶2. By February 13, 2020, all Class Notices and Claim Form Materials were initially 15 mailed in accordance with the class notice procedures. Dkt. No. 64, ¶¶4-7. Class counsel also established a settlement web page within 30 days of the date of the Order 16 Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement, that contained the Class Notice, the 17 Claim Form Materials and key filings in the litigation, including the Motion for 18 Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs and Incentive Awards. Hamburger Decl. ¶3. See 19 http://www.symslaw.com/chisettlement/. 20 The Order also provided that class members who wished to comment on or object 21 to the proposed Agreement were required to do so by April 1, 2020. Class members were 22 informed of their rights and of this deadline in the notices that were mailed to them and 23 via links on Class counsel’s website. 24 The Order further scheduled a final settlement hearing, which was held on April 25 15, 2020, to consider objections and comments by class members and to determine 26 1 whether the proposed Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and should be approved 2 by the Court. 3 II. FINDINGS 4 1. The parties have reached a Settlement Agreement providing prospective 5 coverage of medically necessary Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapies to treat 6 Autism and a claims process for reimbursement of previously uncovered ABA therapies, 7 the exact terms of which are set out in the Agreement. 8 2. This Agreement also establishes a settlement fund of $800,000. Under the 9 terms of the Agreement, this fund will be used to pay retrospective claims for 10 unreimbursed ABA therapy services during the class period, attorneys’ fees and costs, 11 case contribution awards, costs of claims administration, and taxes. If funds remain after 12 these payments, then the residual funds will be returned to CHI. 13 3. The Agreement provides that an independent claims administrator will 14 receive and process claims, and it provides for an appeal process in the event of a dispute 15 over whether a claim should be paid. 16 4. The Court’s Order and a subsequent Stipulated Order Modifying 17 Settlement Approval Process and Class Notice Package required the Claim Processor to 18 mail court-approved notices, claim forms, and a “Certification of Payment(s)” to class 19 members by direct mail. The notices informed class members that they had an 20 opportunity to object or submit comments to the Court regarding the proposed 21 Agreement and that they must do so in writing by April 1, 2020. 22 5. Consistent with the Order, Defendants provided notices and materials 23 required under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). 24 6. Class notices were mailed initially to 21,423 participants and beneficiaries 25 in the CHI Medical Plan. The Claims Processor reports that it checked the addresses 26 against the National Change of Address database before mailing and that it would 1 conduct additional searches for addresses for notices that were returned. See generally 2 Dkt. No. 64. 3 7. No class members objected to the Settlement Agreement. No class 4 members submitted comments. A total of 5 claims were received by the Claims 5 Processor by April 1, 2020. The total value of these claims, before they are adjudicated 6 by the Claims Processor, together with the claim of the named plaintiff is approximately 7 $82,242.75. 8 III. CONCLUSIONS 9 8. Rule 23(e) provides that “a class action shall not be dismissed or 10 compromised without the approval of the court….” Compromise and arbitration of 11 complex litigation is encourage and favored by public policy. See Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, 12 Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 9. A presumption of fairness and adequacy attaches to a class action 14 settlement reached in arm’s-length negotiations by experienced class counsel after 15 meaningful discovery. See, e.g., Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com., 688 F.2d 615, 625 16 (9th Cir. 1982); Pickett v. Holland Am. Line-Westours, Inc., 145 Wn.2d 178, 209, 35 P.3d 351 17 (2001). 18 10. The following factors are generally considered when determining whether 19 a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable: the likelihood of success by plaintiff; the 20 amount of discovery or evidence; the settlement terms and conditions; recommendation 21 and experience of counsel; future expense and likely duration of litigation; 22 recommendation of neutral parties, if any; number of objectors and nature of objections; 23 and the presence of good faith and absence of collusion. Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 24 625. 25 26 1 11. Based upon these factors, the Court finds that the Agreement is fair, 2 reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. The requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.23 3 and due process have been satisfied. 4 12. Specifically, the Court concludes that the Agreement was the result of 5 arm’s-length bargaining. It was reached after sufficient discovery and other litigation 6 activity. Although the class had a strong likelihood of success, the key legal issues in the 7 case had not been adjudicated, such that there was risk in proceeding with the litigation. 8 A settlement in which class members will be able to continue to obtain coverage of 9 medically necessary ABA therapies in the future, and full reimbursement for their ABA 10 therapies, achieves the goals of the litigation. There is no evidence of collusion between 11 the parties, and the agreement was reached in good faith. 12 13. The class was provided with adequate notice, and due process has been 13 satisfied in connection with the distribution of the notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pickett v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.
35 P.3d 351 (Washington Supreme Court, 2001)
Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.
175 F.3d 716 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
J.R. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jr-v-blue-cross-and-blue-shield-of-illinois-wawd-2020.