insurance coverage

June 8, 2021

June is PTSD Awareness Month

Picture1-ptsd-300x300
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that is triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares, and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event.

According to the National Center for PTSD, a program of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, about seven or eight of every 100 people will experience PTSD in their lifetime. Women are more likely than men to develop PTSD. Certain aspects of the traumatic event and some biological factors (such as genes) may make some people more likely to develop PTSD.

Even though PTSD treatments work, many people who have PTSD do not get the help they need. June is PTSD Awareness Month. The goal of PTSD Awareness Month is to spread the word that effective PTSD treatments are available.

May 26, 2021

Kantor & Kantor, LLP Creates COVID Longhaulers Legal Resource Center

by KantorLaw

When the disability insurance attorneys at Kantor & Kantor, LLP see what is happening with those whose COVID-19 symptoms are continuing for more than a month, they know that there is a good chance that long-term disability claims will be denied. Because of this, we have developed the COVID Longhaulers Legal Resource Center.

In fact, the symptoms that Longhaulers are experiencing match many of the same disabling symptoms those living with autoimmune diseases such as ME/CFS, Dysautonomia, POTS, and more.

Since the symptoms dovetail, we are confident that the inevitable problems and denials with the long-term disability insurance providers will follow suit.

May 24, 2021

Kantor & Kantor, LLP Challenges Denial by Kaiser for Critical Treatment of Patient with Aggressive Multiple Sclerosis

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

Aaron Monheim, age 34, lives in Spokane, Washington with his wife and three year old daughter. In 2019, Aaron was diagnosed with aggressive relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis which has been unresponsive to medications and leaves Aaron partially disabled due to frequent flares and relapses.

Aaron’s physicians recommended him to receive a treatment called hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, found to be particularly suited for his form of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. The treatment will effectively reset his immune system so it will no longer attack his central nervous system. The treatment is also less costly than the traditional medications for multiple sclerosis which have been unsuccessful for Aaron.

Despite having been referred to the treatment by his own Kaiser doctor, Aaron’s health plan, Kaiser Permanente, has denied benefits for the treatment claiming the treatment is not necessary or suited for Aaron’s condition.

April 14, 2021

Tips for Understanding Your Mental Health Benefits

by Cari M. Schwartz

Dealing with insurance companies can often feel complex, challenging, and overwhelming. You are not alone. But it is always best to understand your mental health benefits BEFORE you need to use them. Mental health services may be covered in whole or in part by your health insurance or employee benefit plan. It is important to understand your mental health benefits as you will be responsible for any unpaid claims.

Here are some tips and questions to consider as you try to understand your mental health benefits.

Obtain a copy of your health insurance policy or employee benefit plan.

February 26, 2021

Is Short Term Health Insurance Worth the Cost?

by Elizabeth K. Green

An alternative to health insurance marketplaces available through healthcare.gov are “short term” health insurance plans purchased through insurance brokers.

These short term plans have surprisingly low premiums and even slimmer coverage. The problems with these short term plans have caused four states – California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – to ban them.

Insurance brokers are incentivized with higher commissions to sell short term plans compared to Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) plans. See more from Consumer Reports HERE

February 22, 2021

Insurance Payments in a Pandemic

by Stacy Monahan Tucker

Most insurance companies unveiled national advertising campaigns in March 2020, promising to “pause” all policy cancellations or expirations for at least a month due to non-payment of premiums. Many continued this policy, stating that insureds simply had to ask to have their insurance payment plan extended during COVID-19.

Insurance companies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts. In most states, the state insurance commissioner issued directives asking or requiring insurance companies to do exactly this. The federal government similarly issued regulations for policies governed by ERISA, extending the deadlines for appeals until after the pandemic ends.

Despite the state and federal mandates, and their own advertising, insurers have not all followed these requirements. Many insurance companies did in fact still cancel or allow policies to lapse in the first month of the pandemic. Many more put the onus on their insureds to reach out and request help, despite promises that all such extensions would be “automatic.” Here is a summary of the positions taken by some of the major insurance companies:

February 22, 2021

Pushing Back on Insurer’s Refusal to Produce Reserve Information

by Jaclyn D. Conover

First, a quick definition: A claim reserve is a reserve of money set aside by an insurance company in order to pay policyholders’ claims under their policies. Reserves are set by the insurance company in an amount that it anticipates having to pay out for the claim. Reserve information is important because it can show that the carrier undervalued the claim and never had the intent to pay the reasonable and necessary cost to repair the loss.

Despite being required by law to do so, homeowners’ insurers often improperly redact reserve information when producing claim file materials in litigation. Insurers also often to attempt to thwart an insured’s access to reserve information by objecting to deposition topics related to reserves. It is only when pressed that some carriers, whose counsel is aware of their untenable position, will concede and produce unredacted reserve information.

The Eastern District of California recently ruled on several discovery issues in a bad faith action involving a water loss. In Banga v. Ameriprise Auto Home Ins. Agency, No. 2:18-cv-01072-MCE-AC, 2021 WL 634955 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021), a homeowner brought a bad faith action against her insurer after a dispute over insurance coverage for water damage to her home. As a result of high windstorm, the roof of the insured’s house was damaged, causing leakage that further damaged the interior walls and the vaulted ceiling of the house.

December 3, 2020

Departments of Insurance Crack Down on Property Insurers During the Pandemic – No Cancellation During COVID!

by Stacy Monahan Tucker

Did your insurance company cancel your insurance due to nonpayment of premium during COVID? Be aware that most states have either requested, or required, insurers to institute a moratorium on cancellations due to nonpayment during at least part of the pandemic. If your insurance company cancelled your insurance during COVID, remind them of this fact and ask them to reinstate your policy. If they refuse, you may want to talk to a lawyer.

The entire West Coast has seen their Departments of Insurance issue requirements on this subject:

California: On March 18, 2020, California issued a “request” to all insurance companies on March 18, 2020 to provide insureds “at least” a 60 day grace period to pay insurance premiums, and to ensure that policies are not cancelled for nonpayment of premiums due to coronavirus. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2020/release030-2020.cfm

November 25, 2020

In Proton Beam Cancer Treatment Denial Case, Kantor & Kantor Prevails in Discovery Dispute Against Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia

by Tim Rozelle

Our firm is involved in litigating a proton beam cancer treatment denial case in Georgia, Ghattas v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 1:20-CV-03157-ELR, 2020 WL 6867155 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 18, 2020). Defendants Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia (BCBSGA) answered Plaintiff Christopher Ghattas’ Complaint alleging the wrongful denial of his life-saving proton beam radiation therapy at Emory University Proton Therapy Center for a diagnosis of brain cancer. Following Defendant’s answering of the Complaint, counsel began preparing to conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference per the Court’s Order. Prior to the setting of this conference call, counsel for BCBSGA articulated to Plaintiff’s counsel two positions: (1) that ERISA matters were exempt from the initial disclosures requirements of FRCP Rule 26 and (2) that Plaintiff—although never having received a page of the administrative record in this case nor counsel ever discussing the standard of review to be applied to this benefits denial—was not entitled to any discovery in an ERISA matter. The Court resolved these two issues as addressed in the parties’ Joint Preliminary Report to the Court.

First, the Court agreed with Plaintiff’s position that Defendant would be required to produce initial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Rule 26. Citing Golden v. Sun Life Fin., Inc., 2:08-CV-070-WKW, 2008 WL 2782736 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2008), the Court held that “[b]ecause this [ERISA] case involves more than just the administrative record and because the parties will be engaging in discovery, [defendant is] required to provide initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(a).”

Second, Plaintiff had taken the position that he was not foreclosed on any grounds from conducting targeted and limited discovery depending upon the standard of review that would apply to BCBSGA’s benefits denial. Without having produced a single page of the administrative record, BCBSGA took the position that Plaintiff was entitled to no discovery in an ERISA matter. Here, the Court agreed with Plaintiff. Citing Adams v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2008), the Court stated that it did “not agree that discovery is inappropriate here.” “In matters such as the one at hand, ‘the body of case law developed under ERISA’ requires ‘the [C]ourt, at the very least, [to] examine the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision to deny benefits was made to determine whether the administrator’s decision was reasonable.’” Adams, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1367. The Court held that Plaintiff was entitled to narrowly tailored discovery regarding what evidence the Plan (who claimed it was vested with discretionary authority) was aware of at the time of its decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for proton therapy.

November 25, 2020

Court Rules Air Ambulance Transport Expense Is Not Covered by Health Insurance

by Tim Rozelle

If you have an unpaid air ambulance claim, you may be interested in the recent decision in Lubinski v. CVS Health Welfare Benefit Plan, Case No. 20-cv-89, 2020 WL 6870822 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2020).

While on vacation in the Dominican Republic, Plaintiff Renatta Lubinski, who had a history of acute leukemia, developed multiple conditions that compromised her respiratory system and kidney function. Doctors determined Lubinski should be transported by air ambulance to receive lifesaving treatment in the United States. Because of her complicated diagnosis and medical history, Lubinski was taken to her local hospital in Illinois, where her own doctors, who cared for her regularly and were familiar with her medical condition, could treat her. Aerocare Medical Transport System Inc., a company that provides highly specialized international air ambulance transportation services for patients in critical care, flew Lubinski from the Dominican Republic to Miami, Florida, and then from Miami to Evergreen Park, Illinois.

Aerocare charged $242,500 for the first flight and $284,250 for the second flight and submitted two claims for payment to Lubinski’s employee benefit plan, CVS Health Welfare Benefit Plan (CVS Plan), which was administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL). BCBSIL initially denied Aerocare’s claim. Aerocare appealed, and BCBS concluded that the first trip from the Dominican Republic to Miami was medically necessary and covered under the plan, but that the second trip from Miami to Evergreen Park was not. Aerocare was reimbursed $30,000 out of $242,500 and its second appeal for more money was denied. Under Lubinski’s employee benefit plan, air ambulance transportation was covered at a rate of 80% minus a deductible. Aerocare initiated this lawsuit, seeking to recover payment for both trips, pre-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing (1) that the anti-assignment clause in the plan document precluded Aerocare’s claim and (2) that Aerocare failed to state a claim for relief. In response to the first argument, Lubinski replaced Aerocare as the plaintiff. This left defendants’ second argument for review.