¶¶ 20, 22, 26, 28–31, 36.) After August 1, 2019, PIH continued to 21 provide mandatory emergency treatment and Cigna allegedly purposefully failed to 22 fully reimburse for those services. Some 19 treatment fell within the period the contracts governed, and Cigna still allegedly owes 20 payment. 17 PIH contends that Cigna breached the earlier written contracts, as well as 18 implied contracts arising afterwards, by not paying for services rendered. (Id.) However, PIH continued to provide services to patients Cigna either 16 insured directly or for whom Cigna administered plans. ¶ 19.) On August 1, 2019, those three contracts 15 terminated. ¶¶ 2, 13–16.) PIH and Cigna had three previous contracts for health 14 care services to Cigna’s insureds. ¶ 23.) Cigna consists of three interrelated health care service 13 insurers. ¶¶ 1, 8–12.) Because of their unique position as 10 hospitals, federal and state laws require PIH to provide emergency care to those with 11 life-threatening conditions without first obtaining insurance verification or 12 authorization. 7 PIH are hospitals that provide healthcare services to the San Gabriel Valley and 8 9 BACKGROUND surrounding areas. 26.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Amend, 6 GRANTS the Motion to Remand, and DENIES the request for costs.1 II. 20.) On January 25, 2021, PIH moved to 4 remand and additionally sought $11,360 in costs. NOR 3 (“Motion to Amend” or “MTA”) 1, ECF No. (See NOR.) On January 19, 2021, Cigna moved Case 2:20-cv-11595-ODW-MAA Document 44 Filed 08/16/21 of 9 Page ID #:785 1 for leave to file a first amended notice of removal “to effect a clarification of and to 2 supplement the basis for allegations of jurisdiction.” (Notice Mot. On December 23, 2020, 26 Cigna timely removed the action to this Court, alleging federal jurisdiction on the 27 basis that PIH’s claims are completely preempted by the Employee Income 28 Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”). 1.) PIH 24 asserts causes of action arising from its furnishing emergency services to 25 Cigna-covered patients for which Cigna has failed to pay. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING COSTS INTRODUCTION 19 On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs PIH Health Hospital-Whittier and PIH Health 20 Hospital-Downey (collectively, “PIH”) initiated this action in Superior Court against 21 Defendants Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance 22 Company, and Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Cigna”). CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants. 44 Case 2:20-cv-11595-ODW-MAA Document 44 Filed 08/16/21 of 9 Page ID #:784 JS-6 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Central District of California 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 Case 2:20-cv-11595-ODW (MAAx) PIH HEALTH HOSPITALWHITTIER, et al., v. CIGNA Healthcare of California Inc et al Doc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |