Harvey T. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 15 December 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-cv-00351-DBB-DAO |
Citation | 508 F.Supp.3d 1088 |
Parties | HARVEY T., Jane R., and William T., Plaintiffs, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the Invesco Life Cycle Flex Plan, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Brian S. King, Nediha Hadzikadunic, Brian S. King PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.
David N. Kelley, Madelyn L. Blanchard, Scott M. Petersen, Fabian Vancott, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) denied Plaintiffs’ claims for healthcare reimbursement under an employee welfare benefits plan. Plaintiffs contend their claims were wrongly denied under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).1 Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.2 Having considered the briefing and the relevant law, the court denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Harvey T. was a participant in the Invesco LifeCycle Flex Plan (Plan), an employee welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA.3 His son, W.T., was a beneficiary of the Plan.4 Aetna "provide[s] certain administrative services to the Plan."5 The Plan gives Aetna the "exclusive discretionary authority to construe and to interpret the plan, to decide all questions of eligibility for benefits, and to determine the amount of such benefits."6
.
• Major depressive disorder.
• Obsessive compulsive disorder.
• Panic disorder.
• Psychotic depression.
• Schizophrenia.10
However, 11 Under "Medical Plan Exclusions" the Plan indicates that it "covers only those services and supplies that are medically necessary and included in the What the Plan Covers section."12 The "Medical Plan Exclusions" also list as excluded certain "Educational services:"
, developmental, learning and communication disorders, behavioral disorders, (including pervasive developmental disorders ) training or cognitive rehabilitation, regardless of the underlying cause; and
• Services, treatment, and educational testing and training related to behavioral (conduct) problems, learning disabilities and delays in developing skills, except as specifically covered under the Speech Therapy Rehabilitation Benefit in the What the medical Plan covers section.13
The Plan requires certain services to be precertified, which helps the beneficiary and the beneficiary's physician "determine whether the services being recommended are covered expenses under the plan" and "allows Aetna to help [the] provider coordinate [the] transition from an inpatient setting to an outpatient setting (called discharge planning), and to register [the beneficiary] for specialized programs or case management when appropriate."14 "Stays in a treatment facility for treatment of mental disorders or substance abuse treatment" require precertification.15 In instances when precertification was "not requested, but would have been covered if requested" then expenses are "covered after a precertification benefit reduction is applied."16 The benefit reduction is in the amount of $350.17
W.T. attended Daniels Academy, a licensed residential treatment center in Utah,18 from April 30, 2015 until August 11, 2016.19 W.T.’s parents did not precertify the services he received at Daniels Academy,20 but later submitted the claims to Aetna.21 On February 19, 2016, Aetna denied the claims, providing that 22 On April 4, 2016, Aetna sent W.T. a letter again explaining that the claims were denied based on "a specific exclusion for the requested service or treatment" and directing Plaintiffs to "the exclusions listed in the Exclusions section of the benefit plan document."23
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."34 "When both parties move for summary judgment in an ERISA case, thereby stipulating that a trial is unnecessary, ‘summary judgment is merely a vehicle for deciding the case; the factual determination of eligibility of benefits is decided solely on the administrative record, and the non-moving party is not entitled to the usual inferences in its favor.’ "35
The court must first determine the standard under which to review Aetna's decisions. The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the validity of a claim to benefits under an ERISA plan is likely to turn on the interpretation of terms in the plan at issue."36 Applying the law of trusts, the Court held that "a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to...
To continue reading
Request your trial