Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SANJIV GOEL, M.D., INC., a California corporaiton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY PENSION AND HEALTH PLAN, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-56345
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 7, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Brian Donald Boydston, Esquire, Pick & Boydston, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Jean Pierre Nogues, Jr., Esquire, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: PAEZ, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sanjiv Goel appeals the district court’s ruling that the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plan did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the subject services he provided were not eligible for reimbursement as emergency room services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Plan gives its directors discretion to decide eligibility for, and the extent of, benefits provided by the Plan. For billing purposes, the Plan distinguishes between “Emergency Room Services” and other services. The Plan reimburses for non-emergency room services at a different rate than emergency room services.

Here, the disputed services were not provided in the emergency room but in a separate location in the hospital, and were provided after the patient was admitted to the hospital via the cardiac catheterization lab. It was not an abuse of discretion for the plan administrators to conclude that the disputed services were not entitled to reimbursement at the emergency room services rate. See Gatti v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not repeat them here.