PETERSON v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., 14-CV-2101 (PJS/BRT). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20150127d90
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss. Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on the record at the January 23, 2015, hearing, defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff New Life Chiropractic, PC ("New Life") and quoted in paragraph 38 of the Amended Co
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss. Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on the record at the January 23, 2015, hearing, defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff New Life Chiropractic, PC ("New Life") and quoted in paragraph 38 of the Amended Com..
More
ORDER
PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss. Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on the record at the January 23, 2015, hearing, defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff New Life Chiropractic, PC ("New Life") and quoted in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint does not assign the patient's right to receive benefits to New Life, but merely gives defendants permission to pay the patient's benefits directly to New Life. As a result, New Life does not have standing to bring this action. For that reason, defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by New Life is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Court finds that the authorization signed by each patient of plaintiff Lutz Surgical Partners, PLLC ("Lutz") and quoted in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint does not assign the patient's right to receive benefits to Lutz, but merely gives defendants permission to pay the patient's benefits directly to Lutz. As a result, Lutz does not have standing to bring this action. For that reason, defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by Lutz is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by plaintiff Louis J. Peterson, D.C. is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
