- Posts by Maximilian D. CadmusMember of the Firm
Attorney Max Cadmus is a versatile litigator who focuses his practice on commercial disputes, insurance law, and appeals.
Clients rely on Max to represent them in insurance coverage, antitrust, and unfair competition disputes; ...
In an important win for healthcare providers, on July 17, 2020, the Third Circuit determined in a published opinion that an out-of-network provider’s direct claims against an insurer for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are not pre-empted by ERISA. In Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.[1] In an issue of first impression, the Third Circuit addressed the question of what remedies are available to an out-of-network provider when an insurer initially agrees to pay for the provision of out-of-network services, and then breaches that agreement.
This case arose because two patients—identified as J.L. and D.W.—required medical procedures that were not available in-network through Aetna. J.L. needed bilateral breast reconstruction surgery following a double mastectomy and D.W. required “facial reanimation surgery,” which the Third Circuit describes as “a niche procedure performed by only a handful of surgeons in the United States.” Neither J.L. nor DW had out-of-network coverage for these procedures. D.W.’s plan also contained an “anti-assignment” clause, which would have prevented D.W. from assigning his or her rights under the plan to the Plastic Surgery Center, P.A.
Across the nation, authorities are scrambling to meet the new challenges posed by COVID-19. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has recommended that individuals remain six feet apart in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. On March 13, 2020, the White House proclaimed a national emergency and many State governments have ordered non-essential businesses to close, and residents to self-distance. However, these emergency measures conflict with the rules for personal service of process established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Personal service of process is among the oldest and commonest means by which a court can obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant. F.R.C.P. 4(e) provides that personal service of process can be accomplished by handing the process papers to the defendant personally or leaving the papers with a responsible person at the defendant’s dwelling.
In most cases, personal service involves the physical act of handing papers from one person to another. The very act of accomplishing personal service therefore violates the CDC’s recommendation that individuals remain six feet apart. However, it can also run contrary to more stringent restrictions imposed by State governments.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Georgia & North Dakota: More State Judges Question the Constitutionality of Abortion Bans
- OCR Withdraws Appeal of District Court Order Declaring Unlawful and Vacating the “Proscribed Combination” Portion of Its HIPAA Online Tracking Technologies Guidance
- As the Window for Comments Closes on ONC/ASTP’s HTI-2 Proposed Rule: What’s in HTI-2 and What Does It Mean for You?
- Unpacking Averages: Assessing FDA’s Postmarket Surveillance Under Section 522
- Video: New State Legislation Increases Oversight of Health Care Transactions – Thought Leaders in Health Law