Kuhr v. Mayo Clinic Jacksonville

• Decision Date: 30 March 2021
• Docket Number: CASE NO.: 3:19-cv-453-MMH-MCR
• Citation: 530 F.Supp.3d 1102
• Parties: Natalie KUHR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE, a Florida not for profit corporation and Professional Service Bureau, Inc., a Foreign corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

530 F.Supp.3d 1102

Natalie KUHR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE, a Florida not for profit corporation and Professional Service Bureau, Inc., a Foreign corporation, Defendants.

CASE NO.: 3:19-cv-453-MMH-MCR

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

Signed March 30, 2021

Jordan Alexander Shaw, Kimberly Slaven, Zebersky & Payne, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.

Emily Joy Lang, Kara Marie Wick, Virginia Ruth Tideswell Beeson, Christi A. Lawson, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Orlando, FL, James Andrew McKee, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District Judge

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 47; Final Approval Motion), filed on January 11, 2021, and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and for Named Plaintiff's Service Award (Doc. 42; Fee Motion), filed on September 8, 2020. Pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), Plaintiff requests that the Court finally approve the class action settlement and the attorneys’ fees award. See Final Approval Motion at 3; Fee Motion at 19.¹ The Court conducted a final fairness hearing on January 20, 2021, to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement of this action, and counsel for both parties appeared via Zoom at the hearing. See Minute Entry (Doc. 52; Fairness Hearing).² In addition, the Court has reviewed the Final Approval Motion and Fee Motion, together with all other submissions. As set forth below, the Court will approve the class action settlement and enter an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Natalie Kuhr initiated this action in state court on January 9, 2019, against Defendants Mayo Clinic Jacksonville (Mayo) and Professional Service Bureau, Inc. (PSB). See Class Action Complaint (Doc. 3; Complaint). PSB removed the action to this Court, with Mayo's consent, on April 22, 2019. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1; Notice). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Mayo and PSB under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fla. Stat. § 559.72, and against Defendant PSB under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. See Complaint, Cts. I-IV. Plaintiff alleges that Mayo billed, and PSB attempted to collect, medical fees in excess of the amounts permitted under Florida law from certain Florida residents whose medical care was covered by personal injury protection (PIP) insurance. See generally Complaint.

Pursuant to section 627.736(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes, medical providers who render treatment "to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by [PIP] insurance may charge the insurer and injured party only a reasonable amount pursuant to this section for the services and supplies rendered ...." See Fla. Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). The statute includes a schedule of the amounts a medical provider may charge (the Maximum Charge) and provides that the insurer "may limit reimbursement to 80 percent" of the Maximum Charge. See id. § 627.736(5)(a)(1). In addition, the statute states that "[i]f an insurer limits payment as authorized by subparagraph 1., [the medical provider] may not bill or attempt to collect from the insured any amount in excess of such limits, except for amounts that are not covered by the insured's [PIP] coverage due to the coinsurance amount or maximum policy limits." See id. § 627.736(5)(a)(4.).

Kuhr contends that Mayo violated these provisions by attempting to collect from patients amounts in excess of those permitted under this statute, a practice known as "balance billing." See Complaint ¶¶ 27-36. According to Kuhr, when Mayo's attempts to collect this "illegitimate debt" failed, Mayo referred the matter to PSB. Kuhr alleges that her insurer informed PSB that the insurer had paid the amount legitimately owed, but PSB nevertheless continued to send Kuhr correspondence attempting to collect the excess debt. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. Kuhr contends that by attempting to collect a debt that Mayo and PSB knew was not legitimately owed, Mayo and PSB both violated the FCCPA, and PSB violated the FDCPA. See id. ¶¶ 55-66. Both Mayo and PSB filed answers denying these allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. See Defendant Mayo Clinic Jacksonville's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Doc. 4; Mayo Answer), filed April 22, 2019; Defendant Professional Service Bureau, Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Doc. 8; PSB Answer), filed April 29, 2019.

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff sought to bring the claims in this case as a class action on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals. See Complaint ¶¶ 46-54. In light of this, Local Rule 4.04(b) required Plaintiff to "move for a determination under Rule 23(c)(1) as to whether the case is to be maintained as a class action," within ninety days "following the filing of the initial complaint in such an action, unless the time is extended by the Court for cause shown ...." See Local Rule 4.04(b), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.³ However, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for class certification by the deadline. As a result, Defendants objected to engaging in class-wide discovery, apparently alerting Plaintiff to the missed deadline and prompting her to file a belated motion for an extension of the time to file a motion for class certification. See Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification Regarding the Class Certification Deadline, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions for Class Certification (Doc. 24), filed December 6, 2019. The Court exercised its discretion to grant the motion in an Order (Doc. 26) entered January 14, 2020. The parties then engaged in discovery, and after negotiating amongst themselves, were able to reach a proposed class-wide settlement without needing to attend the mediation scheduled in this case. See Joint Notice of Proposed Class Settlement (Doc. 28), filed March 18, 2020. Notably, the parties filed the Joint Notice of Proposed Class Settlement just over two months after the Court's Order extending the class certification deadline.

On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Approval of Class Notice, Scheduling of Final Approval Hearing, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 35; Initial Motion) seeking preliminary approval of the settlement as well as approval of the proposed class notice. See generally Initial Motion, Ex. 1: Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 35-1; Settlement Agreement); see also Settlement Agreement, Ex. B: Proposed Notice. Upon review of the Initial Motion and attachments, the Court had several concerns regarding the proposed class definition, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Proposed Notice. See Order (Doc. 36), entered July 17, 2020. As such, the Court set the matter for a hearing, id., at which all parties appeared via Zoom on August 6, 2020. See Minute Entry (Doc. 40; August Hearing). In accordance with the matters discussed at the August Hearing, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Renewed Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Approval of Class Notice, Scheduling of Final Approval Hearing, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 41; Renewed Motion) on September 8, 2020, along with a Revised Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release Pursuant to Federal Rule 23 (Doc. 41-1; Revised Agreement), and a revised proposed class notice (Doc. 41-3; Revised Proposed Notice). Also on September 8, 2020, and as directed by the Court at the August Hearing, Plaintiff filed the instant Fee Motion.⁴

Upon review of the Renewed Motion, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order conditionally certifying the Settlement Class. See Preliminary Approval Order at 23-24. In addition, the Court reviewed the Revised Proposed Notice and found it necessary to re-work the notice to promote clarity and provide the Class Members with sufficient information regarding their rights and the proposed settlement. As such, the Court prepared the Court's Class Notice and attached it to the Preliminary Approval Order for distribution to the Settlement Class. Except as to the amount of attorneys’ fees and the request for an incentive award,⁵ the Court then preliminarily approved the Revised Agreement and set forth the procedures and timeframes for dissemination of the Court's Class Notice to the Settlement Class. See generally Preliminary Approval Order at 24-26. Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the Revised Agreement, as well as approval of an award of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel.

II. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ⁶

a. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

The Revised Agreement (Doc. 44) provides for the recovery of statutory and actual damages for the Settlement Class, which is an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3). As conditionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class consists of the Mayo Class and the FDCPA Subclass, defined as follows:

The Mayo Class:

[A]ll Florida residents who according to readily accessible data and other electronic records of Mayo, at any time during the period of January 9, 2017 through May 28, 2020, were charged by Defendant Mayo medical-related fees related to motor vehicle accidents in excess of the amount allowed under Florida law.

The FDCPA Subclass:

[A]ll Florida Residents who according to readily accessible data and other electronic records of Mayo and PSB, at any time during the period of January 9, 2018 through May 28, 2020, were charged by Defendant PSB acting on

...