Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-09427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rowe v. Aetna, Judge Torres granted the parties’ joint request to stay discovery and deadlines until February 13, 2023.
The plaintiffs and Aetna Life Insurance Company are affected because discovery and case-management activity in this action were paused until February 13, 2023.
What happened
Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company concerns claims by plastic-surgery practices seeking additional payment from Aetna for services provided to patients covered by Aetna-issued or Aetna-administered health plans.
The parties jointly asked to pause discovery and case-management deadlines for 60 days while they explored a global resolution of this case and five other similar federal cases. They said the cases were still at an early stage and that the pause would avoid the expense of competing discovery deadlines.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the request and stayed the action until February 13, 2023.
The detailed version
- Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-09427
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 29, 2022
Background
The filing states that the plaintiffs, including Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. and East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C., seek additional payment from Aetna Life Insurance Company for services provided to patients whose health benefits came through plans issued or administered by Aetna. The complaint identified the defendant as “Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company,” while the filing identifies Aetna Life Insurance Company as the defendant’s correct name.
The filing also states that counsel represented five plastic-surgery practices that had filed 29 cases against Aetna in New York state courts. Aetna had removed six of those cases to the Southern District of New York, and the parties were seeking similar relief in the federal cases. The parties described the cases as involving different patients, health plans, service dates, and, to a lesser extent, services, but said their legal theories were substantially similar.
The requested stay
The parties jointly requested a 60-day stay of all discovery and case-management deadlines while they negotiated a possible global resolution. They said the cases were in their early stages, that they had previously resolved similar lawsuits, and that pausing formal discovery would allow them to focus on settlement discussions. They also proposed jointly reporting their progress and requesting a status conference after the stay if the cases were not resolved.
A discovery stay is an order temporarily pausing the exchange of evidence and information between the parties. The filing cited the rule allowing a court to stay discovery for good cause and argued that the parties’ agreement, the early stage of the litigation, the similarity of the cases, and the potential savings of time and expense supported the request.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres ordered: “GRANTED. This action is STAYED until February 13, 2023.” The order therefore paused the action through that date. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying payment claims or whether the parties reached a resolution.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.