Schmitt v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington

Opinion

1 2

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 ANDREA SCHMITT; ELIZABETH 9 MOHUNDRO; and O.L. by and through NO. 2:17-cv-01611-RSL her parents, J.L. and K.L., each on their own 10 behalf, and on behalf of all similarly 11 situated individuals,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CLASS 13 v. CERTIFICATION 14 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 15 OF WASHINGTON; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF 16 WASHINGTON OPTIONS, INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE 17 NORTHWEST; and KAISER 18 FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., 19 Defendants. 20 This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Settlement Class 21 Certification. Plaintiffs Schmitt, Mohundro and O.L., by and through her parents, J.L. 22 and K.L. were represented by Eleanor Hamburger, Richard E. Spoonemore and Daniel S. 23 Gross of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC. Defendants Kaiser Foundation 24 Health Plan of Washington, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Options, Inc., 25 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 26 1 Inc. were represented by its counsel, Medora Marisseau, Mark A. Bailey and Joshua M. 2 Howard of Karr Tuttle. 3 The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Settlement Class 4 Certification and the Declaration of Richard E. Spoonemore, in addition to the pleadings 5 and records in this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(B), the 6 Court finds that it “will likely be able to . . . certify the class for purposes of judgment” 7 on the parties Settlement proposal and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Settlement Class 8 Certification. The Court further appoints class counsel and class representatives as set 9 forth below: 10 A. The Proposed Class Meet the Requirements of FRCP 23(a). 11 With respect to FRCP 23(a)(1), the Court finds that the proposed settlement class 12 can reasonably be expected to be so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Both parties concede that the class numbers in the thousands. 13 The commonality requirement under FRCP 23(a)(2) is also met, as there are 14 common questions of law and fact that affect all members of the class. For purposes of 15 facilitating this settlement only, the Defendants have not opposed the Plaintiffs’ motion, 16 accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ proposed common question relevant to the class is 17 unopposed and is: Does Kaiser’s administration of a categorical exclusion of hearing 18 aids and related hearing treatment violate ACA’s non-discrimination statute and the 19 Washington Law Against Discrimination? In light of the specific circumstances of this 20 unopposed motion, the Court finds the answer to this common question would result in 21 a class-wide adjudication of the claims in this action. 22 For the same reasons, the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical to those of the Class 23 as required by FRCP 23(a)(3). In pursuing their claims, Plaintiffs will necessarily 24 advance the interests of the Class. 25 26 1 The Court also finds that the named plaintiffs Andrea Schmitt, Elizabeth 2 Mohundro and O.L., by and through her parents, J.L. and K.L., are adequate class 3 representatives who have chosen counsel experienced in class actions of this nature. 4 There are no conflicts between the named plaintiffs and the Class members. The named 5 plaintiffs and their counsel meet the requirement of adequate representation under 6 FRCP 23(a)(4). 7 B. Certification of the Class Under FRCP 23(b)(3). 8 The Court finds that the Class also meets the requirements of FRCP 23(b)(3) which 9 permits certification of a class when (1) questions of law or fact common to the class 10 members predominate over questions affecting individual members, and (2) such an 11 action is superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy. Both 12 requirements are satisfied. Predominance is satisfied here because the global question in the case impacts all 13 class members and dominates over any individualized questions. 14 A class action is superior here because the cost of litigation far exceeds the claims 15 of any individual seeking hearing aid coverage. There is little difficulty in managing a 16 class action when it has reached the settlement stage. See Amchem Products, Inc. v. 17 Windsor, 521 U. S. 591, 623, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997); Vinole v. Countrywide 18 Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). “The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance 19 inquiry asks the court to make a global determination of whether common questions 20 prevail over individualized ones.” Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1134 21 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 C. Class Definition. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following Settlement 24 Class is certified for all claims brought in this case: 25 26 All individuals who: 1 (1) were insured at any time during the Settlement Class Period 2 under a Washington health insurance plan that has been, is or 3 will be delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington and Kaiser Foundation 4 Health Plan of Washington Options (collectively, “Kaiser”), excluding Medicare Advantage plans and plans governed by 5 Federal Employee Health Benefits Act that did not cover Hearing 6 Aids and Associated Services and 7 (2) have required, require or will require treatment for hearing loss other than treatment associated with cochlear implants, or with 8 Bone Anchored Hearing Aids (BAHAs). 9 The Settlement Class Period is defined as October 30, 2014 through December 31, 10 2023, inclusive. The Settlement Class will be dissolved in the event the Settlement 11 Agreement between the parties is not finally approved by this Court. 12 D. Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. 13 The Court APPOINTS Plaintiffs Andrea Schmitt, Elizabeth Mohundro, O.L. by 14 and through her parents J.L. and K.L., as the class representatives, and Ms. Hamburger, 15 Mr. Spoonemore and Mr. Gross of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger are 16 appointed as class counsel.

17 Dated this 11th day of December, 2023. 18

19 Robert S. Lasnik 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presented by: 1 2 SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3 /s/ Richard E. Spoonemore 4 Eleanor Hamburger (WSBA #26478) 5 Richard E. Spoonemore (WSBA #21833) Daniel S. Gross (WSBA #23992) 6 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 7 Tel. (206) 223-0303; Fax (206) 223-0246 8 Email: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com 9 dgross@sylaw.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26