California District Court Finds Lawful Health Plan's Categorical Exclusion of Certain Types of Prosthetic Devices
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.13
The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of PacifiCare, on an ERISA claim for benefits for myoelectric prosthetic devices.
Plaintiff sought coverage for replacement of myoelectric prosthetic devices, which PacifiCare denied based on a specific exclusion in the plan for myoelectric devices. Plaintiff argued that California Health & Safety Code § 1367.18 requires that when health plans offer prosthetic coverage, that coverage must include all medically necessary original and replacement devices when prescribed by a qualified medical professional. Plaintiff argued that PacifiCare's categorical exclusion for myoelectric devices violates the statute because it excludes coverage for a medically necessary replacement device prescribed by Plaintiff's physician.
PacifiCare argued that it is permitted to exclude specific types of prosthetics devices or services under the plain language of the statute. The statute authorizes the plan and subscriber, here Plaintiff's employer, to negotiate the "terms and conditions" of its offer of coverage.
The Court agreed with PacifiCare's interpretation of Section 1367.18 based on the statute's plain language, the legislative history, and case law interpreting similar California mandate statutes. The Court held that the statute's plain language does not address the type or quality of the covered prosthetic devices or establish that the physician's prescription supersedes the agreement between a plan and the employer. The Court also found that the legislative history confirms that the statute only dictates particular "terms and conditions"—the amount of coverage and costs—but leaves the scope of coverage to the mutual agreement of the parties. The Court therefore held that PacifiCare's exclusion for myoelectric prosthetic devices was lawful. Plaintiff has filed an appeal of the order and judgment.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.25
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.25
Client Alert | 12 min read | 04.09.25