Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00563/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Aviation West Charters Incorporated, as 

successor in interest to Angel Jet Services, 

LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, 

and as assignee of Jane Doe, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Administaff Group Health Plan; and 

Administaff of Texas, Inc., a Texas 

corporation; and United Healthcare 

Insurance Company, a Connecticut 

corporation, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00563-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Aviation West Charters, Inc.’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 21.) Pursuant to the Case Management Order (Doc. 18), the 

parties were required to produce and submit a Joint Administrative Record for this 

Court’s use in the review of the benefits determination in this ERISA action. Defendant’s 

filed a notice that they had timely disclosed an initial copy of that record as required 

(Doc. 19) but apparently Aviation West did not respond to that record, or propose any 

additions or omissions. Unable to file a joint Administrative Record, the Defendants 

submitted the Administrative Record they disclosed to Aviation West. (Doc. 20.) 

Aviation West did not object to the submitted Administrative Record, submitted nothing 

additional for the Court to consider, and requested no discovery. Aviation West’s 

Statement of Facts included exhibits that are almost all excerpts from the Administrative 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 10
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Record submitted by Defendants. The only new evidence submitted is an affidavit 

attached to the Reply about whether a person worked for Aviation West. (Doc 25-1.) 

Therefore, the Court will treat the Administrative Record submitted by Defendants, and 

the extra affidavit, as the full and complete record for review in this case. 

 The Case Management Order also set a briefing schedule for an opening, response, 

and reply brief. (Id.) Instead, Aviation West submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 21) and a Statement of Facts (Doc. 22). Defendants responded to the Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) and submitted their own Statement of Facts (Doc. 24). 

Aviation West then replied. (Doc. 25.) Nevertheless, the parties followed the deadlines 

established for the briefing schedule and focus their arguments on the standard of review 

for ERISA actions by this Court. Therefore, this Court will treat these motions as briefs 

in this review of the ERISA determination of benefits.1

 The Court now turns to the merits of this challenge to the ERISA 

determination made by Defendants. The request for Oral Argument is denied because the 

parties have thoroughly discussed the law and the evidence, and oral argument will not 

aid the Court’s decision. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu 

Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir.1991). For the reasons explained below, the benefits 

determination is affirmed because Aviation West fails to establish that Defendants abused 

their discretion in reaching their determination. 

BACKGROUND 

 This action challenges the amount paid by a medical insurance plan for the 

transportation costs of flying a patient from Pennsylvania to Texas. On May 28, 2011, 

Aviation West Charters Inc. (“Aviation West”)2

 provided air ambulance services for a 

patient who was suffering from a number of severe psychological problems. Insperity 

 1

 Both sides also failed to conduct good faith settlement talks by October 15, 2013, 

or at least they failed to file a Joint Report on Settlement Talks within five days of that 

date as required by the Case Management Order. 

2

 Aviation West brings this suit as successor in interest to Angel Jet Services, LLC 

(“Angel Jet”) and some of the actions herein attributed to Aviation West were in fact 

performed by Angel Jet. 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 10
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Group Health Plan f/k/a/ Administaff Group Health Plan, Insperity Holdings, Inc. f/k/a 

Administaff of Texas, Inc., and United Healthcare Insurance Company (collectively 

referred to as “Defendants”) provided and administered the patient’s health insurance. 

Aviation West sought and obtained a prior authorization from Defendants before the 

flight. (A.R. at 3.) 

 After the flight, Aviation West submitted a claim form to Defendants requesting 

$307,785 in reimbursement. (A.R. at 1.) Defendants responded with two Explanations of 

Benefits and made two payments on the claim in the amounts of $7,967.10 and 

$7,092.80. (A.R. at 79–84.) The Explanation of Benefits both listed the “amount 

charged,” the amount “not covered,” the “amount allowed,” and the amount “paid to 

provider.” (Id.) The Explanation of Benefits each had remark codes of “ND” and “#” 

which were defined in the “Remarks” section as follows: 

(ND) A non network health care provider or facility 

provided these services. Your claim has been paid based on 

your benefit plan, which uses rates established by the federal 

government for the Medicare program. If no Medicare rate 

applies to these services, your claim was paid based on 

another available rate source developed by us or our affiliate 

or by an outside entity. . . . 

(# ) Payment of Benefits has been made in accordance with 

the terms of the managed care system. 

(Id.) Defendants issued these benefits determinations on August 17 and 22, 2011. (Id.) 

 Aviation West appealed the determinations on February 17, 2012 (A.R. at 67–76) 

and Defendants acknowledged receipt of that appeal on February 24, 2012 (A.R. at 153–

60) and then on March 23, 2012, it indicated that it was transferring the appeal to another 

department (A.R. at 1209–10). Aviation West alleges that Defendants have not otherwise 

responded to the appeal (Doc. 22 at ¶ 32), but Defendants insist that they responded by 

phone on June 14, 2012, and cite to a record of that call (A.R. at 638–39). On March 18, 

2013, Aviation West initiated this action seeking full payment and accrued interest on the 

billed total of $307,785. (Doc. 1.) 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 3 of 10
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DISCUSSION 

I. Standard of Review 

 “The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) permits a 

person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan to challenge that denial in federal 

court.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 108 (2008). When a plan 

administrator both determines eligibility and pays the claims, that creates a conflict of 

interest and courts should weight that conflict as a factor in determining whether the 

administrator abused its discretion. Id. The significance of that conflict is determined by 

the facts of each particular case. Id. The parties here agree that an abuse of discretion 

standard applies in this case. 

 An “abuse of discretion” occurs when the Court is “left with a definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability 

Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 676 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 

1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). A court “may not merely substitute [its] view for 

that of the fact finder,” but must consider whether the plan administrator’s decision was 

“(1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn 

from the facts in the record.” Id. 

 A plan administrator will not always prevail under this deferential standard of 

review, but “a plan administrator’s decision will not be disturbed if reasonable.” 

Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 521 (2010). A court’s review will be “tempered by 

skepticism” when there is a conflict of interest and “if the administrator gave inconsistent 

reasons for a denial, failed to provide full review of a claim, or failed to follow proper 

procedures in denying the claim.” Harlick v. Blue Shield of Cal., 686 F.3d 699, 707 (9th 

Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1492 (2013). 

II. Analysis 

1. Payment of the Claim

 Aviation West fails to demonstrate that Defendants abused their discretion in the 

way they paid the claim. Aviation West makes several arguments based on the language 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 4 of 10
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of the insurance contract about why it should have been paid the full amount it billed. It 

further argues that the language of the contract is confusing, circular, and misleading and 

that all of that the ambiguity should be construed in its favor. 

 The relevant portions of the “Certificate of Coverage” insurance contract are as 

follows. In the coverage tables, Ambulance Services are a provided benefit. The contract 

states that in most cases Defendants will initiate and direct non-emergency ambulance 

transportation, but if the patient is requesting such services, the patient should submit a 

pre-authorization or else the Benefits paid will be reduced by as much as fifty percent. 

(A.R. at 6.) For Network services, the policy pays one hundred percent of the Eligible 

Expenses for emergency and non-emergency ambulance services by ground or air. (Id.) 

For Non-Network services, the table says that it is “Same as Network.” (Id.) In other 

words, assuming a preauthorization is filed if need, whether the ambulance provider is a 

Network or Non-Network provider, the insurance will always pay one hundred percent of 

the Eligible Expenses. 

 The next step is to determine what the Eligible Expenses are. The contract defines 

Eligible Expenses as follows: 

Eligible Expenses are the amount we determine that we will 

pay for Benefits. For Network Benefits, you are not 

responsible for any difference between Eligible Expenses and 

the amount the provider bills. For Non-Network Benefits, you 

are responsible for paying, directly to the non-Network 

provider, any difference between the amount the provider 

bills you and the amount we will pay for Eligible Expenses. 

Eligible Expenses are determined in accordance with our 

reimbursement policy guidelines, as described in the 

Certificate. 

For Network Benefits, Eligible Expenses are based on either 

of the following: 

• When Covered Health Services are received from a Network 

provider, Eligible Expenses are our contracted fee(s) with that 

provider. 

• When Covered Health Services are received from a nonNetwork provider as a result of an Emergency or as otherwise 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 5 of 10
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

arranged by us, Eligible Expenses are billed charges unless a 

lower amount is negotiated. 

For Non-Network Benefits, Eligible Expenses are based on 

the following: 

• When Covered Health Services are received from a nonNetwork provider, Eligible Expenses are determined at our 

discretion based on the lesser of: 

 Fee(s) that are negotiated with the Provider 

 110% of the published rates allowed by the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare 

for the same or similar service within the geographic 

market 

 50% of billed charges 

 A fee schedule that we develop. 

• When Covered Health Services are received from a Network 

provider, Eligible Expenses are our contracted fee(s) with that 

provider. 

(A.R. at 264–65.) 

 Here, the parties concede or the administrative record establishes many relevant 

facts. The patient was covered by the policy at the time of the transport and Aviation 

West sought and received a pre-authorization for the services from Defendants.3

 (Doc. 24 

at 1–3.) Aviation West performed the air ambulance services and submitted a claim form 

for $307,785. (Id. at 5.) Defendants paid Aviation West two payments on the claim in the 

amounts of $7,967.10 and $7,092.80. (Id. at 8–9; A.R. at 79–84.) Aviation West 

submitted an appeal and received confirmation that the appeal was received, and later 

 3

 Even though Aviation West stated in both its Motion and Statement of Facts that 

it contacted the Defendants to seek a preauthorization (Doc. 21 at 2:9–11; Doc. 22 ¶ 9) it 

took issue with Defendants’ brief for stating the same thing. (Doc. 25 at 2.) Apparently 

Defendants erroneously cited page 194 of the record and a phone call with Rebecca 

Sparks (Id.) Aviation West went so far as to attach an affidavit from a personal manager 

that Ms. Sparks was never an employee. (Doc. 25-1.) It appears that the correct record 

citation for the contact that Aviation West repeatedly admitted that it made should have 

been to pages 186 and 187 of the Administrative Record. In answer to Aviation West’s 

other objection about these notes being from the wrong department, this citation indicates 

that Aviation West was contacting multiple of Defendants’ departments including both 

Medical and Behavior Health. 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 6 of 10
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

was informed that the appeal was still being processed and was being transferred to 

another department. (Doc. 24 at 10–11.) Finally, there is no dispute that Aviation West 

was not a regular Network provider for Defendants with an ongoing contractual 

agreement regarding rates. 

 There is a dispute about who ordered or requested the transportation. This is 

important because under the definition of Eligible Expenses, “[w]hen Covered Health 

Services are received from a non-Network provider as a result of an Emergency or as 

otherwise arranged by us, Eligible Expenses are billed charges unless a lower amount is 

negotiated.” (A.R. at 264.) This was not an Emergency transport and no lower amount 

was negotiated. If Defendants “otherwise arranged” for the transport, then there is a 

strong argument that the “Eligible Expenses are billed charges” and Defendants should 

have paid the full $307,785 billed. Aviation West alleges that the transport was ordered 

by the patient’s doctor, but the Defendants allege that it was requested by the patient’s 

husband. (Doc. 24 at 3.) The record provides some corroboration for both scenarios. (See

A.R. at 3 (listing the doctor’s name as “Ordering Provider”); A.R. at 183 (noting that the 

spouse wants to air taxi the member back and has the finances for it).) 

 Regardless of whether the doctor or the husband asked for the flight, it is still 

possible that Defendants “otherwise arranged” for it. Aviation West argues that the fact 

that it received a pre-authorization from Defendants indicates that Defendants were 

arranging the transport. However, Aviation West requested the pre-authorization. The 

contract indicates that the Defendants will usually initiate and arrange for transportation, 

but pre-authorizations only seem to be required when Defendants are not arranging the 

transportation and the patient is requesting it. Given this conflicting and underdeveloped 

record, Aviation West has not met its burden to show that Defendants abused their 

discretion by treating this as a flight requested by the patient and not otherwise arranged 

by Defendants. 

 Aviation West’s other arguments about why it should have been paid the full 

billed amount have less merit. For example, Aviation West argues that it received a “gap 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 7 of 10
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

exception” or other guarantee of “in-network” pricing, but it only points to the preauthorization as evidence of this. As the Defendants correctly note, there is no such 

language in the pre-authorization. (A.R. at 3.) Aviation West also argued that the second 

Explanation of Benefits did not provide a basis for the benefits determination even 

though the record establishes that it had the same remarks codes and remarks as the first 

one did. (A.R. at 79–84.) Aviation West objects to the arbitrary division of its claim into 

two Explanations of Benefits, but there is no indication of why this is relevant because 

Defendants reviewed the entire and correct amount billed. 

 Finally, Aviation West argues that the language of the contract has ambiguities 

that must be construed in its favor. Its argument is that because the amount of Eligible 

Expenses covered for Non-Network, Non-Emergency air ambulance is “Same as 

Network” that everything about the way they are paid must be the same. (A.R. at 6.) It is 

clear from the contract that the percentage of Eligible Expenses covered is what is meant 

by the “Same as Network.” Both are one hundred percent. That does not change the 

definition of what Eligible Expenses are, and that definition varies for in and out of 

network providers. (A.R. at 264–65). That definition references both Medicare fee 

schedules and schedules that the Defendants develop which is consistent with the 

explanation provided in the Remarks of the Explanation of Benefits. Aviation West has 

not met its burden to show that Defendants abused their discretion in reaching the fee 

determination. This is true even after considering the decision with skepticism as required 

by Harlick because of the conflict of interest. 

 2. Proper Procedures and a Full and Fair Review. 

 Aviation West next argues that because Defendants did not follow proper 

procedures or provide a full and fair review, additional skepticism is warranted in 

applying the abuse of discretion standard. Although Harlick would call for skepticism in 

such circumstances, Aviation West fails to establish from the record that either of these 

allegations is true. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 8 of 10
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 First, Aviation West has not demonstrated that Defendants failed to follow proper 

procedures. Its argument is that the Summary Plan Description provides that any denial, 

in whole or in part, will be accompanied by a specified basis for the denial and specific 

information about how the claimant can perfect the claim. Here there is no serious 

dispute about whether the claim was accepted and paid, the dispute is whether the amount 

paid was appropriate. Furthermore, the payments that were made included an explanation 

of why they were paid the way they were. Aviation West has not demonstrated that any 

claim was denied, or that Defendants failed to provide an adequate explanation of their 

decision about the amount it did pay. 

 Second, Aviation West has not demonstrated that Defendants failed to provide a 

full and fair review. Its argument is that although Defendants acknowledged receipt of the 

appeals, they never responded. In their briefing, Defendants counter that they did respond 

by a phone call on June 14, 2012, and they cite to a record of that call. (Doc. 20-2 at 638–

39.) Defendants concede that they had some internal confusion in processing the appeal 

and that the response took longer than the permissible time period. However, Aviation 

West does not argue that the review was improper because it was late. Aviation West 

only argues that Defendants never responded, and Aviation West did not rebut 

Defendants’ documented assertion that they did respond. Accordingly, the record 

supports Defendants claim that they responded, and therefore, Aviation West cannot 

establish an abuse of discretion on the ground that no review was granted. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 21), is treated as an opening brief and this Court affirms the determination of 

benefits. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 5th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00563-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 10 of 10