Commercial Litigation Update

Although the window for filing lawsuits under the Child Victims Act (CVA) closed over four years ago, thousands of cases remain pending in courts throughout New York State.  Many of those cases involve public school districts. 

In its 2022 decision in Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the phrase “entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits” applied to “all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they are receiving Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay.” 597 U. S. 424, 445 (2022) (quoting §1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I); alteration in original).

In doing so, the Court left open the question of what it means to be “entitled to supplementary security income [SSI] benefits . . . under subchapter XVI.” §1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I).

Today, in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, the Court, in a 7–2 decision (with Justice Barrett writing for the majority and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissenting), held “that a person is entitled to such benefits when she is eligible to receive a cash payment during the month of her hospitalization.” Today’s decision continues the unbroken string of losses that the petitioner hospitals have suffered in this litigation at both the administrative and judicial levels.

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: When businesses face regulatory uncertainty, how can they effectively adapt, respond, and, if necessary, challenge government action?

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Mike Brodlieb, Jim Flynn, Jimmy Oh, and Jack Wenik navigate the complexities of regulatory action and inaction. The conversation dives into the changing administrative landscape and covers how businesses can strategize to challenge regulations, the pros and cons of litigation, and the critical importance of aligning legal goals with practical business objectives.

The panelists also explore how agencies’ evolving processes create both challenges and opportunities, including how internal agency relationships and unexpected legal arguments can shape outcomes. From assembling the right legal team to balancing risk and reward in high-stakes scenarios, they discuss real-world tactics for crafting solutions that address uncertainty while keeping business interests front and center.

Gain insight into how legal professionals are managing the intricate interplay between government regulation, litigation strategies, and client priorities in today’s dynamic environment.

The U.S. Supreme Court resolved more textual battles today, one in a fully argued case, the other on procedural motions.

The combinations of Justices continue to defy stereotypes, and at least one of those combinations, led by the Chief Justice, constitutes a majority that is willing to stand up to presidential assertions of expansive powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in American Hospital Association (“AHA”) v. Becerra (2022) sent shockwaves through the 340B drug pricing program when it held that CMS’ reduction of reimbursement for drugs purchased under the 340B program was not permitted by law. The Supreme Court chose not to address potential remedies and remanded the case back to the D.C. District Court for further proceedings on how to correct the underpayments. Instead of vacating the unlawful reimbursement rates, the District Court decided to remand without vacatur, allowing HHS the opportunity to remediate its underpayments.^[1] AHA v. Becerra (2023).

In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a 2023 Final Rule mandating a retroactive lump-sum reimbursement to 340B participating hospitals for 340B underpayments made between 2018 and 2022. The Supreme Court’s decision, coupled with CMS’s administrative action, has led to significant contractual disputes and regulatory challenges as 340B contract hospitals seek restitution for past financial shortfalls while Medicare Advantage organizations (“MAOs”) grapple with the fiscal implications of these payment adjustments. The stakes are high, with hospitals seeking significant back payments and MAOs pushing back, arguing that their obligations are dictated by contracts, not federal rulemaking. As legal battles unfold, the question remains: Who is financially responsible for correcting these underpayments? This article analyzes these developments, focusing on the litigation between hospitals and MAOs and offering strategic contractual considerations in this shifting landscape.

[1] The court reasoned that vacatur would be highly disruptive due to the complexity of the Medicare system and potential budget neutrality concerns.

In its recent unpublished decision, United States ex rel. Stebbins v. Maraposa Surgical Inc., 2024 WL 4947274 (3d Cir. Dec. 3, 2024), the Third Circuit clarified that the public disclosure bar prevents whistleblower False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam actions arising from information gathered solely through publicly accessible databases.

As the Third Circuit explained, “[t]he FCA punishes the submission to the Government of fraudulent claims for payment under, for example, the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”  Id. at *1.  While the FCA encourages individuals, known as relators, to report government-related fraud by way of filing a qui tam suit, the public disclosure bar prevents a relator from bringing an FCA qui tam suit “if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed” in a “Federal report” or “from the news media” unless the relator is “an original source of the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).  In the Third Circuit, “the public disclosure bar applies if either Z (fraud) or both X (misrepresented facts) and Y (true facts) are publicly disclosed by way of a listed source.” Stebbins, 2024 WL 4947274, at *2 (quoting U.S. ex rel. Zizic v. Q2Administrators, LLC, 728 F.3d 228, 236 (3d Cir. 2013)). 

In United States ex rel. Stebbins v. Maraposa Surgical Inc. et al., despite having no affiliation whatsoever with the defendants, the relator filed a qui tam action alleging, inter alia, that the defendants fraudulently sought reimbursement for the arteriograms performed in a physician’s office, rather than a licensed ambulatory surgery center, which the relator asserted violates Pennsylvania’s regulations.  Without deciding whether the defendants actually engaged in any wrongdoing, the Third Circuit held that the public disclosure bar prohibited the relator from proceeding with suit because the relator drew each piece of information supporting his FCA allegations from publicly disclosed databases.

In a major win for healthcare providers, on September 20th a Louisiana state court jury awarded $421 million in favor of an out-of-network provider in its long dispute with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (“BCBS of Louisiana”). BCBS of Louisiana is the largest insurer in the State of Louisiana.

Payors have developed a reputation for underpaying or denying payment to providers altogether. This is especially true for providers who do not have contracts with insurance companies and, as a result, are out-of-network. Meanwhile providers who have contracts with  insurance companies, i.e., in-network providers, are subject to preferential contract rates and in exchange are supposed to be paid in a timely manner. However, many providers have learned this is not what happens. Out-of-network providers, in particular, face an uphill battle to get reimbursed for the medically necessary services rendered to patients. The out-of-network provider in this case experienced just that.

Since there is no contract between the provider and payor in an out-of-network context, the provider submits its billed charges to the payor. Many states have balance billing laws that preclude the provider from seeking payment from the insured directly. Knowing that the provider has limited recourse, insurance companies will often either not pay or pay slowly. St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery (“St. Charles”) is well-known for its treatment of cancer patients. After not being appropriately reimbursed for the services rendered to patients, St. Charles filed its lawsuit in Louisiana state court in 2017. According to St. Charles, BCBS of Louisiana would authorize surgeries, the providers would perform those surgeries pursuant to the authorizations, and then the insurer would not render the appropriate payment. The case involved about 7,000 procedures that were performed on an out-of-network basis. St. Charles claimed that BCBS of Louisiana only paid approximately 9% of the total amount billed for these services. St. Charles’s claims against the insurance company were for fraud and abuse of rights. The insurance company’s defense included arguments that authorizing medical treatment did not guarantee payment at those rates. Rather, BCBS of Louisiana negotiated individual deals for out-of-network reimbursement with brokers or employers.

On November 24, 2022, New York’s Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”) (S.66A/A.648A) will go into effect and likely will usher in a tidal wave of litigation across the state. Employers will be impacted by the law, in addition to individuals, and the resulting litigation could span many years – particularly with the ongoing court delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, developing a proactive defense strategy for ASA claims and resolving potential insurance coverage issues in advance, is of vital importance as this date draws near.

On January 12, 2022, the closely watched Nevada lawsuit filed by emergency medicine providers against one of the largest health insurance companies in the world—UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company—was again the focus of hundreds of thousands of providers throughout the country.

The recent hearing followed a seven-week trial during which the jury found that United and its affiliates deliberately underpaid frontline healthcare workers for emergency medical services. The jury awarded $60 million in punitive damages and $2.65 million in compensatory damages to three Nevada-based emergency physician group affiliates of TeamHealth, a physician services and staffing company.

As we previously reported, Judge Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied an insurance carrier’s motion for summary judgment in K.C. Hopps Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. Inc., No. 20-cv-00437-SRB (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 2021) and sent the case to trial.

On October 28, after a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the insurer. The case involved claims by a group of restaurants under their insurance policies’ business income (and extra expense) coverage form. Under that coverage, the insurer is obligated to pay for the insured’s ...

Although insurers largely have continued to have success in federal court defeating COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits, one judge – Judge Stephen Bough of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri – continues to be pro-policyholder. As we previously reported, last year he refused to dismiss several suits brought by policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for COVID-19 related losses.

Last week, in K.C. Hopps Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. Inc., No. 20-cv-00437-SRB (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 2021), Judge Bough gave policyholders ...

As we have written here previously, businesses across the country have brought lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage for losses related to COVID-19. According to the COVID Coverage Litigation Tracker at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, over 1,500 suits have been filed since March 2020 in state and federal court. Some interesting statistics based on that information:

• Over one third of the cases have been filed by food services establishments.
• Almost one quarter of the cases were brought as class actions.
• Approximately one third of the cases involved ...

Following up on our prior discussion of Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Comp., a different federal judge in the Western District of Missouri recently ruled in Zwillo V, Corp. v. Lexington Insurance Co. that a Kansas City restaurant could not recover for COVID-19 business interruption losses under an insurance policy and, in the process, questioned the reasoning of Studio 417, Inc. and other recent decisions.

The owner of a restaurant in Kansas City (the “Insured”), purchased a commercial property insurance policy from Lexington Insurance Company (the ...

Following up on our recent post about a business interruption insurance decision by a Washington D.C. court, a federal judge in Missouri ruled last month, in Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Comp., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB, that businesses can sue their insurance carrier for business interruption losses caused by COVID-19.

Plaintiffs, owners of a hair salon and various restaurants (the “Insureds”) purchased an all risks policy from Cincinnati Insurance Company (the “Insurer”). As a result of losses sustained due to COVID-19, the Insureds sought business ...

On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, a District of Columbia trial court granted an insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. Plaintiff insureds (“Insureds”) own several restaurants in Washington D.C. that were forced to close and suffered serious revenue losses stemming from the Mayor’s orders to close non-essential businesses and ordering people to stay home. As a result, the Insureds made claims to Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange (the “Insurer”) under their policies that included coverage for “loss of ‘income’ and/or ‘rental income’” sustained “due to partial or total ‘interruption of business’ resulting directly from ‘loss’ or damage” to the property insured. The policy also stated that it “insures against direct physical ‘loss.’”

Dictionary Definitions Open to Interpretation

As the Court framed the issue, “[a]t the most basic level, the parties dispute whether the closure of the restaurants due to Mayor Bowser’s orders constituted a ‘direct physical loss’ under the policy.” To support their argument, the Insureds relied on dictionary definitions of “direct” as “[w]ithout intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate;” and “physical” as pertaining to things “[o]f or pertaining to matter, or the world as perceived by the senses; material as [opposed] to mental or spiritual.” The policy defined “loss,” as “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.”

The Insureds relied on these definitions to make three arguments. First, they argued that the loss of use of their restaurant properties was “direct” because the closures were the direct result of the Mayor’s orders without intervening action. The Court rejected that argument because those orders commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions and “[s[tanding alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not affect any direct changes to the properties.”

Second, the Insureds argued that their losses were “physical” because the COVID-19 virus is “material” and “tangible,” and because the harm they experienced was caused by the Mayor’s orders rather than diners being afraid to eat out. The Court also rejected that argument because the Insureds offered no evidence that COVID-19 was actually present on their properties at the time they were forced to close and the mayor’s orders did not impact the tangible structure of the properties.

Third, the Insureds argued that the policy’s definition of “loss” as encompassing either “loss” or “damage,” required the insurer to “treat the term ‘loss’ as distinct from ‘damage,’ which connotes physical damage to the property,” and thus “loss” incorporates “loss of use.” The Court rejected that argument and held that the words “direct” and “physical” modify the word “loss” and therefore any “loss of use” must be “caused, without the intervention of other persons or conditions, by something pertaining to matter—in other words, a direct physical intrusion [onto] the insured property.” The Court held that the Mayor’s orders did not constitute such a direct physical intrusion.

On March 23, 2020, shortly after the Governors of California, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey issued orders closing non-essential businesses, we recommended that businesses review their insurance policies to determine if they had either business interruption coverage or civil authority coverage that might be available to lessen the economic blow of COVID-19.  As explained here, business interruption coverage generally allows a business to recover certain  losses in the event that the business suffers physical damage or loss that prevents it from operating its business ...

The COVID-19 pandemic has leveled a blow against businesses everywhere. The Governors of New York, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, for example, have ordered all non-essential businesses to close their physical locations and the California Governor has ordered all residents, except those performing essential functions, to stay home. Governors across the country have issued orders restricting various business activities. The trend is likely to continue in the coming weeks and to adversely impact the bottom line of many businesses.

Some businesses, however, may have ...

On March 10, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), which regulates a wide variety of financial institutions, including banks, insurance companies, and investment advisors doing business in New York, issued a series of letters regarding the response to the Novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”). In addition to providing guidance, DFS has asked all regulated financial institutions to provide “assurance” that they have plans to address the operational and financial risks associated with COVID-19. A copy of the letter to regulated financial ...