certification motions in cases making other claims, including those against health benefitplan administrators.In Kazda, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77880 (N.D. Cal.Apr. 26, 2022), the plaintiff moved to certify a class of participants in health plansadministered by the defendant whose claims for liposuction treatment for their lipedema(a rare condition causing abnormal buildup of fat tissue that causes pain, mobilityissues, and other physical problems) were denied as cosmetic. The plaintiff’s claim andseveral subsequent appeals for benefits were denied by the defendant, theadministrator of her spouse’s employer’s health plan, based on policy exclusions andother guidance directing the denial of claims for liposuction treatment as cosmetic. Theplaintiff asserted claims for denial of plan benefits and breach of fiduciary duties,seeking a clarification of rights and injunctive relief and class certification under Rules23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). In opposing class certification, the defendant argued that theplaintiff was an inadequate and atypical class representative under Rule 23(a) becauseshe lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief insofar as she could not show a futureinjury. The court disagreed. It held that the injunctive relief that the plaintiff sought wasretrospective in nature, i.e., notice to the class that the defendant had changed itsprocedures with respect to the treatment and reprocessing of previously deniedrequests for it. Id. at *12-13. Insofar as the initial injury continued to exist, the courtconcluded that the plaintiff had standing to seek retroactive injunctive relief andotherwise satisfied Rule 23(a)’s typicality and adequacy requirements. Id. at *14-16. Thecourt found that the plaintiff had satisfied Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement and,despite a class size of no more than 25 individuals, concluded that the class wassufficiently numerous under the circumstances, and applied a relaxed numerositystandard where only injunctive and declaratory relief were sought. Id. at *20-25. Finally,the court concluded that certification was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) because ofthe risk “that different courts might come to different conclusions about whether [thedefendant’s] denial of claims was” wrong, which would lead to incompatible standardsfor defendant’s future conduct. Id. at *25-27. It also held that certification wasappropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that thedefendant had acted pursuant to a common policy or practice of denying the kind ofbenefit claim that the plaintiff had made, noting that courts have recognized that Rule23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when a plaintiff seeks a claims-reprocessinginjunction, as the plaintiff did here. Id. at *27-28. Finding the requirements of Rules23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) satisfied, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for classcertification.III.Top ERISA Class Action SettlementsThe value of the top 10 ERISA class action settlements in 2022 was $399.60, whichwas almost the same as the total of $411.05 million in 2021. The top 10 values over thepreceeding four years have been nearly flat.In 2022, the top ten ERISA settlements totaled $399.60 million.205© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
11
42
55
67
86
98
114
129
144
173
189
209
219
238
244
258
282
293
303
314
330
354
371
381
386
391
422
