W.A. Griffin, MD v. Aetna Health Inc.
This text of W.A. Griffin, MD v. Aetna Health Inc. (W.A. Griffin, MD v. Aetna Health Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 17-13113 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 17-13113 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00077-AT
W.A. GRIFFIN, MD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AETNA HEALTH INC., COVENTRY HEALTHCARE OF GEORGIA, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________
(August 24, 2018) Case: 17-13113 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE, * District Judge.
HINKLE, District Judge:
Dr. W.A. Griffin, a dermatologist, brought this action against Coventry
Healthcare of Georgia and a related entity, Aetna Health Inc., to collect statutory
penalties under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the action as outside the statute of
limitations. We affirm, but on other grounds. See Powers v. United States, 996
F.2d 1121, 1123 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a judgment may be affirmed on a
basis different from that adopted by the district court).
Dr. Griffin’s claims arise out of treatment she provided to five patients, each
of whom was a member of an employer-sponsored health plan governed by
ERISA. Each patient assigned the right to benefits to Dr. Griffin, and Dr. Griffin
submitted a claim to Coventry for the cost of treatment. Dr. Griffin asserts that
Coventry was the plan administrator. Coventry paid a portion of each claim. Dr.
Griffin appealed and asked for a copy of the summary plan description. Coventry
did not provide the summary plan description and still has not done so.
ERISA requires a “plan administrator” to provide a “summary plan
description” upon written request of a plan participant or beneficiary. 29 U.S.C.
* Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 17-13113 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 3 of 5
§ 1024(b)(4). ERISA gives a plan participant or beneficiary a civil cause of action
against a plan administrator who fails to provide a summary plan description
within 30 days. Id. § 1132(a), (c). A plan participant or beneficiary may collect
monetary penalties from a noncomplying plan administrator of up to $100 per day.
Id.
Dr. Griffin brought an earlier action under this statute against Coventry and
Aetna arising from the treatment of these same patients. There, too, Dr. Griffin
claimed that Coventry owed her statutory penalties for failing to provide a copy of
the summary plan description. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that
the patients did not assign their rights to sue under ERISA for statutory penalties.
See Griffin v. Aetna Health Inc., No. 1:15-cv-3750-AT (N.D. Ga. June 2, 2017).
The district court interpreted the assignments as conferring only the right to receive
benefits. Dr. Griffin did not appeal.
After dismissal, Dr. Griffin obtained a second assignment from each patient
that explicitly conferred the right to sue for statutory penalties. Each new
assignment purported to “retroactively” convey the right to sue for statutory
penalties.
The parties disagree on whether a person may “retroactively” assign rights
against a third person. But that framing of the issue misses the forest for the trees.
3 Case: 17-13113 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 4 of 5
The critical question is whether Coventry violated the statute by denying Dr.
Griffin’s request for the summary plan description. The answer is no.
The explanation is this. When Dr. Griffin requested the summary plan
description, she had no right to it. The district court settled this issue in the earlier
lawsuit, and Dr. Griffin did not appeal. She does not challenge that ruling in this
case. The patients had a right to the document at the time of Dr. Griffin’s request,
but the patients did not request the document.
This means that when Coventry failed to provide the summary plan
description to Dr. Griffin, Coventry did not violate the statute. Dr. Griffin later
obtained assignments of the right to request a copy, but she did not again request a
copy. So even if, as Dr. Griffin asserts, the new assignments conveyed any right
the patients had to statutory penalties, this makes no difference, because the
patients had no right to statutory penalties. They had never requested or been
denied a copy of the summary plan description.
In sum, because Coventry did not fail to provide a copy of the summary plan
description in response to a request by a person who was entitled to a copy at the
time of the request, Coventry did not violate the statute. Coventry is not liable for
statutory penalties for violations it did not commit.
4 Case: 17-13113 Date Filed: 08/24/2018 Page: 5 of 5
This holding makes it unnecessary to address the other grounds on which
Coventry and Aetna moved to dismiss. The statute of limitations for an ERISA
claim of this kind is borrowed from state law. Relying on circuit precedent, the
district court applied a one-year limitations period. See Harrison v. Digital Health
Plan, 183 F.3d 1235, 1238 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Cummings v. Wash. Mut.,
650 F.3d 1386, 1391 n.4 (11th Cir. 2011). Dr. Griffin asserts those decisions did
not survive the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Western Sky Financial v.
State ex rel. Olens, 300 Ga. 340, 793 S.E.2d 357 (2016). Because, as set out above,
this complaint was properly subject to dismissal on the merits, we need not decide
whether the limitations period for an ERISA claim for statutory penalties in
Georgia is one year, see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-28, or six years, see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24, or
twenty years, see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. We also need not decide whether Coventry
was the plan administrator.
For these reasons, the judgment dismissing this action is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
W.A. Griffin, MD v. Aetna Health Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wa-griffin-md-v-aetna-health-inc-ca11-2018.