Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo
| Decision Date | 09 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | 92 Civ. 5419 (LJF).,No. 92 Civ. 3999 (LJF),92 Civ. 3999 (LJF) |
| Citation | 813 F. Supp. 996 |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, New York State Health Maintenance Organization Conference, Intervenor, v. Mario M. CUOMO, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants, New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Hospital Association of New York State, Intervenors. The HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, New York State Health Maintenance Organization Conference, Intervenor, v. Mark CHASSIN, M.D., in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Defendants, New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Hospital Association of New York State, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Craig Murphy, Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives, New York City, for plaintiff, Travelers Ins. Co.
Clifford Stromberg, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs, Aetna Life Ins. and Mut. of Omaha.
Sidney S. Rosdeitcher and Catherine J. Ross, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for plaintiff, Health Ins. Assoc. of America.
Jane Lauer Barker, Office of the Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., New York City, for defendants.
Harold N. Iselin, Couch, White, Brenner, Howard & Feigenbaum, Albany, NY, for intervenors, NYS Health Maintenance Organization.
B.J. Costello, Hinman, Straub, Pigors & Manning, P.C., Albany, NY, for intervenor, NYS Conference of Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans.
Robert A. Bicks, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, for intervenor, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Philip Rosenberg, Sherrin & Glasel, Albany, NY, for intervenor, NYS Hosp. Assn.
These consolidated actions involve a challenge by plaintiffs The Travelers Insurance Company ("Travelers") and The Health Insurance Association of America ("HIAA"), among others, to a number of New York statutes imposing surcharges on the hospital rates for certain categories of payors (the "Surcharges"). Travelers also challenges a Department of Insurance letter interpreting some of those provisions (the "Actuarial Letter").
In their complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Surcharges and Actuarial Letter are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act ("FEHBA"). Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment. The New York State Health Maintenance Organization Conference (the "HMOs") has intervened and filed briefs in support of that motion. The United States has also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs' FEHBA claims.
Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion and cross-move for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. The New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (collectively, the "Blues") and the Hospital Association of New York State ("HANYS") have intervened and filed briefs in support of defendants' position.
For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' cross-motion is denied. In sum, the Court finds that (1) the Tax Injunction Act does not preclude an injunction against the 9% and 11% Surcharges; (2) the three statutory provisions at issue are all preempted by ERISA; (3) plaintiffs' claims as to the 13% Surcharge are not barred by the doctrine of laches; (4) both the 11% and 13% Surcharges are preempted by FEHBA; and (5) Items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Actuarial Letter are also preempted by ERISA.
As stated in the Court's prior orders dated November 10 and December 17, 1992, this case involves New York's comprehensive statutory scheme for the regulation of in-patient hospital rates. As a general rule, a patient's hospital rate is determined by the patient's diagnosis, which governs the particular category, or Diagnosis Related Group ("DRG"), to which the case is assigned. The hospital charges patients the rate applicable to their assigned DRG, subject to certain adjustments reflecting costs specific to that hospital.
Section 2807-c(1)(b) of New York's Public Health Law provides that the DRG rate for inpatient services is increased by 13% for all patients covered by any form of health insurance other than Blue Cross and Blue Shield, a health maintenance organization ("HMO") or a government plan such as Medicare (the "13% Surcharge"). Thus, patients who have hospital coverage through commercial insurers or self-insured employee benefit plans pay 113% of the applicable DRG rate, while patients who have hospital coverage through the Blues, an HMO or a government plan pay the basic DRG rate. The 13% surcharge is paid directly to the hospital.
On April 2, 1992, the New York State Legislature adopted the Omnibus Revenue Act of 1992 (the "1992 Act"), which amends the Public Health Law to impose an additional 11% surcharge on rates charged to patients insured by commercial insurers (the "11% Surcharge"). The proceeds of the 11% Surcharge are initially paid by commercial insurers to the hospital, but the hospital must then submit the funds to a pool established by the Commissioner of Health. The 11% Surcharge is then deposited into the State's General Fund.
In addition to the 11% Surcharge, the 1992 Act imposes a surcharge of up to 9% on the hospitalization cost of patients covered by HMOs (the "9% Surcharge"). While HMOs may reduce the 9% Surcharge by enrolling a specified number of Medicaid patients, HMOs which do not or cannot meet the statutory requirements must pay the full amount. Unlike the 11% Surcharge, the 9% Surcharge is not paid to the state through the hospital. Rather, each HMO must pay the surcharge funds directly into a statewide pool established by the Commissioner for Social Services. Like the 11% Surcharge, however, the 9% Surcharge is ultimately deposited into the State's General Fund.
Plaintiffs filed this action, claiming that the statutory surcharges and the Actuarial Letter are preempted under ERISA and FEHBA. Defendants disagree, and argue that the statutes at issue constitute a legitimate exercise of the State's power to regulate hospital rates and/or insurance.
As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether the Tax Injunction Act (the "TIA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars plaintiffs' claims as to the 9% and 11% Surcharges. The TIA provides that:
The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such state.
Thus, to determine whether a particular action falls within the scope of the TIA, a federal district court must determine (1) whether the charge at issue is a "tax," and (2) whether the State provides a "plain, speedy and efficient remedy."
The State, presumably the party with the greatest interest in such matters, has not relied upon the TIA in their papers before this Court. The Blues argue, however, that the TIA applies here because the 9% and 11% Surcharges constitute a state tax which could be challenged in New York state court.
The Court disagrees. Even assuming that the Surcharges are "taxes" within the meaning of the TIA,1 an action to enjoin such taxes as violations of ERISA falls within a judicially-created exception to the TIA. See National Carriers' Conference Committee v. Heffernan, 440 F.Supp. 1280 (D.Ct.1977).
In Heffernan, then District Judge Newman denied a motion to dismiss an ERISA plan's challenge to a Connecticut state tax on benefits paid out under the plan. 440 F.Supp. at 1281. In making that ruling, Judge Newman specifically found that because the United States could have brought the action at issue and because "the very terms of ERISA indicate that Congress intended private plaintiffs' access to the federal courts to be no less than that of the Secretary of Labor's," the plaintiff came within the "federal instrumentalities" exception to the TIA. Id. at 1284.
The same holds true in this case. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of Labor could have filed an action to enjoin the Surcharges at issue. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(5) (); Heffernan, 440 F.Supp. at 1284 (). As a result, private parties such as plaintiffs are also entitled to do so.2
In any event, the Court finds that these plaintiffs do not have a "plain, speedy and efficient" remedy in New York state court. Because ERISA generally confers exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts, a New York state court "might well feel compelled to dismiss a state court action on the grounds that its jurisdiction has been preempted ... Thus, at a minimum the availability of a state court remedy is not `plain.'" Heffernan, 440 F.Supp. at 1283.
It is also unclear whether plaintiffs have any remedy in state court at all. Plaintiffs are suing here in their capacity as fiduciaries for ERISA plans. However, the New York statute is structured so that ERISA plans do not themselves pay the Surcharges. As a result, plaintiffs are not "taxpayers," and could not file a declaratory judgment action in state court to enjoin enforcement of the taxes at issue. (Blues' Brief at 43). Compare Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 80 N.Y.2d 44, 587 N.Y.S.2d 252, 599 N.E.2d 656 (1992) ().
Plaintiffs are also precluded from seeking reimbursement in the New York Court of Claims. Again, although plaintiffs could sue on their own behalf to recover monies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo
...motions for summary judgment in part and denying defendants' motions and cross-motions for summary judgment. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo, 813 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1993). The district court held that certain components of New York's inpatient hospital reimbursement system are preempted by th......
-
NYS Conference Blue Cross v. Travelers Ins.
...several HMOs intervened as plaintiffs. The District Court consolidated the actions and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. 813 F.Supp. 996 (SDNY 1993). The court found that although the surcharges "do not directly increase a plan's costs or [a]ffect the level of benefits to be offer......
-
De Buono v. Nysa-Ila Medical & Clinical Serv.
...on 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(1) is demonstrated by the sole authorities it cited in support of that conclusion: Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo, 813 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd. in part and rev'd in part, 14 F.3d 708 (C.A.2 1993), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. New York State Conference of Blue......
-
United Wire, Metal and Mach. Health and Welfare Fund v. Morristown Memorial Hosp.
...119 L.Ed.2d 227 (1992). 8 We thus find ourselves unpersuaded by the Southern District of New York's recent opinion in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Cuomo, 813 F.Supp. 996, which suggested that Rebaldo has been entirely eroded by opinions of the Supreme Court. The opinion proceeds from what app......
-
The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
...HEALTH LAW [section] 2807.c(1)(b) (McKinney 1993 & Supp. 2001) (repealed 2001). (302) Id. (303) See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cuomo, 813 F. Supp. 996, 999-1000 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd in part rev'd in part, 14 F.3d 708 (1993), rev'd sub nom N.Y. State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Pl......