Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2022

New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP v. Anthem Blue Cross

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-04234
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissInsurance
In one sentence

In New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP v. Anthem Blue Cross, Judge Oetken granted Anthem’s dismissal motion because the complaint did not plausibly state unjust-enrichment or accounting claims.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP’s claims against Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem, Inc. based on the allegations in the second amended complaint. The opinion does not state whether the practice could refile.

What happened

New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP sued Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem, Inc., claiming Anthem paid too little for breast-reconstruction surgeries performed by the practice’s out-of-network surgeons. The practice also sought Anthem’s financial records.

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege unjust enrichment because the services were provided at the patient’s request, not Anthem’s. It also held that the practice did not allege the special relationship required for an accounting claim. The court rejected the argument that federal law required Anthem to pay the full amounts billed.

The court granted Anthem’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and ordered the case closed. Judge Oetken did not decide Anthem’s other dismissal arguments concerning proper parties or the statute of limitations.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP v. Anthem Blue Cross · No. 1:20-cv-04234
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Feb. 22, 2022

Background

New York Group For Plastic Surgery LLP, a physician practice group, sued Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem, Inc., collectively called “Anthem.” The practice alleged that its out-of-network surgeons performed a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap procedure on one breast and breast reconstruction on the other breast. It submitted invoices of about $100,000 for one surgeon, about $97,000 for another surgeon, and about $25,000 for an assistant surgeon. Anthem ultimately reimbursed $13,800.82, $10,386.18, and $4,448.96, respectively.

The practice alleged that Anthem had represented that out-of-network claims would be paid using an allowed amount based on the 90th percentile of Fair Health, but that the reimbursements were not based on that measure. Its second amended complaint asserted unjust enrichment and sought an accounting, including production of financial records that allegedly would show under-reimbursement.

Anthem moved to dismiss the entire second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Anthem also argued that neither defendant was a proper party and that the claims were time-barred. The court addressed only whether the complaint stated claims for unjust enrichment and an accounting.

Unjust Enrichment

Under New York law, an unjust-enrichment claim requires allegations that the defendant benefited, that the benefit came at the plaintiff’s expense, and that fairness requires repayment. The court explained that courts consistently dismiss such claims against insurers when the medical services were provided at the patient’s request rather than at the insurer’s request.

The court held that the practice did not sufficiently allege how Anthem benefited from the surgeons’ performance of services for the patient. The court rejected the practice’s argument that Anthem was required under the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act to provide full coverage for the surgery. According to the court, that law requires coverage but does not require payment of 100 percent of the surgeon’s billed amount. The complaint did not allege that Anthem failed to provide the coverage required by that law.

Accounting Claim

An accounting is an equitable claim seeking an accounting of money or property. Under New York law, it generally requires a fiduciary or confidential relationship, money or property entrusted to the defendant, no adequate legal remedy, and, in some cases, a demand for an accounting that was refused. A normal business relationship alone is not enough; special circumstances must transform it into a fiduciary relationship.

The court held that the practice alleged only an arms-length business transaction with Anthem and did not allege a fiduciary or confidential relationship. The court therefore concluded that the accounting claim failed as well.

Disposition

The court granted Anthem’s motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 38 and close the case. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.