Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> Class Action Defense Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Class Action
: Class Action Defense BlogClass Action Defense Cases—In re Aetna: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In District Of New Jersey
By Michael J. Hassen
Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Plaintiffs in One of the Class Actions, and Transfers Actions to District of New Jersey
Two class actions – one in Connecticut and one in New Jersey – were filed against Aetna and affiliated entities, and other defendants (including Ingenix and its parent UnitedHealth Group), challenging Aetna’s “policies and practices for reimbursing its plan members’ visits to health care providers that are not part of the Aetna network,” that is, to “nonparticipating” or “out-of-network” providers. In re Aetna, Inc., Out-Of-Network "UCR" Rates Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 8, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class action complaints, filed by Aetna health plan members, alleged “that (1) the Ingenix database of billing information was flawed leading to lower reimbursement rates; and (2) Aetna improperly calculated the usual, customary and reasonable (‘UCR’) rates of reimbursement for out-of-network services based upon this data.” Id. Defense attorneys for Aetna filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in Connecticut, New Jersey or New York, but at oral argument limited its request to the district where the two class actions were already pending. Id. Plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action supported the motion and agreed on centralization in that district; plaintiffs in the Connecticut class action opposed centralization or, alternatively, argued for transfer to the District of Connecticut. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “these two actions involve complex common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407…will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” Id. The Panel transferred the class actions to the District of New Jersey because, while either district court would be appropriate, “(1) Judge Faith S. Hochberg has been presiding over the action before her since July 2007 and she is well-versed with the issues involved in this litigation; and (2) two other related actions with similar claims against Aetna are also pending before her.” Id., at 2.
Download PDF file of In re Aetna, Inc., Out-Of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation Transfer OrderFull post as published by Class Action Defense Blog on May 22, 2009 (boomark / email).
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
Mesothelioma Law Suit
Asbestos Exposure
Self Defense
It's legal to defend yourself and your family
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
$189 Million Settlement Reached in Slab Litigation
$189 Million Settlement Reached in Slab Litigation
Breakthrough Settlement Reached In Chinese Drywall Litigation
Chinese Drywall Litigation Breakthrough Settlement Reached
CIA
Department of Defense Sued by Veterans
Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
The Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
Environmental Class Action to Proceed Against DuPont
DuPont New Jersey Drinking Water Contamination Class Action to Proceed

Total Body Formula Update: MDL Hearing in Boston 9/25
Parties in Pet Food Litigation Near Settlement
A Multidistrict Litigation Compendium









