Fields v. Ashford, 17-cv-11812. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180801c15
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY`S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #60) AND 2) GRANTING UNITEDHEALTHCARE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEDICAL INVOICES UNDER SEAL (ECF #61) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . This action arises of an automobile accident between Plaintiff Angela Fields and Defendant Pierre Octavius Ashford. In Fields' Complaint, she alleges that Defendant Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company ("UIC") has "wholly neglected and unreasonab
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY`S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #60) AND 2) GRANTING UNITEDHEALTHCARE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEDICAL INVOICES UNDER SEAL (ECF #61) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . This action arises of an automobile accident between Plaintiff Angela Fields and Defendant Pierre Octavius Ashford. In Fields' Complaint, she alleges that Defendant Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company ("UIC") has "wholly neglected and unreasonabl..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY`S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #60) AND 2) GRANTING UNITEDHEALTHCARE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEDICAL INVOICES UNDER SEAL (ECF #61)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
This action arises of an automobile accident between Plaintiff Angela Fields and Defendant Pierre Octavius Ashford. In Fields' Complaint, she alleges that Defendant Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company ("UIC") has "wholly neglected and unreasonably failed to pay for medical expenses and other benefits provided" to her after the automobile accident with Ashford. (See Compl. at ¶¶ 37-44, ECF #1 at Pg. ID 19-20.)
On June 29, 2018, UIC moved to dismiss Fields' sole claim against it "due to [Fields'] failure to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by ERISA, or alternatively for the entry of judgment affirming the determination of benefits."1 (See ECF #60 at Pg. ID 1392.) Fields filed a response to the motion in which she "state[d] that [she] concur[ed] [] with [UIC's] motion." (Id. at Pg. ID 1489.)
Accordingly, because Fields' "concurs" with UIC's motion, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES Fields' claim against UIC (Count IV of her Complaint).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. UIC has also filed a motion for leave to file certain of Fields' medical invoices under seal. (See ECF #61.) Because the records contain Fields' confidential health information, the Court GRANTS UIC's motion.
Source: Leagle
