1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

A.G., by and through her father, N.G., 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMUNITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY D/B/A/ ANTHEM BLUE 

CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-300

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 10)

This civil action is before the Court upon Defendant Community Insurance 

Company d/b/a/ Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (“Anthem” or “Defendant”)’s Partial 

Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 – 3 of Plaintiff’s class action complaint (Doc. 10) and the 

parties’ responsive memoranda (Docs. 21 and 22).

I. FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court must: (1) view the complaint in 

the light most favorable to Plaintiffs; and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as 

true. Tackett v. M&G Polymers, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009). 

This is an Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (“ERISA”) action 

arising from Defendant’s decision to deny health plan benefits for allegedly medically 

necessary services for wilderness behavioral health treatment for mental health and 
2

substance abuse issues. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1). During the relevant time period, N.G., the father 

of A.G., was an insured by Defendant through his employer-sponsored health insurance. 

(Id. at ¶ 7).1

A.G. has struggled for years with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, 

eating disorders, suicide ideations, and drug use. (Id. at ¶ 10). After counseling, 

hospitalization, and other therapies were unsuccessful, A.G. was sent to Blue Ridge 

Therapeutic Wilderness (“Blue Ridge”). (Id.). Blue Ridge is an outdoor/behavioral 

therapy program located in Clayton, Georgia. (Id.). Blue Ridge is an intermediate care 

program licensed by the state of Georgia as an “Outdoor Child Caring Program” that 

treats youths with mental health and substance abuses diagnoses. (Id. at ¶ 12). Blue 

Ridge uses a multidisciplinary approach to treat youths with mental health and substance 

abuses diagnoses, using wilderness behavioral healthcare therapy to deliver traditional, 

evidence-based treatments. (Id. at ¶ 14). On intake, Blue Ridge patients receive a 

psychiatric assessment and receive tailored personal treatment including individual 

therapy, group therapy, and family therapy. (Id. at ¶ 14). 

A.G. received treatment at Blue Ridge from January 5, 2017 to March 31, 2017. 

(Id. at ¶ 16). N.G. personally paid $46,650 for the Blue Ridge services. (Id.). On 

October 16, 2017, Anthem denied the claims submitted for A.G.’s treatment at Blue 

Ridge based on a plan provision that excludes claims for “wilderness camps.” (Id. at 

 1 A copy of the insurance plan issued to N.G. by Defendant is attached to the complaint. (Doc. 

1-2 (the “Plan”).
3

¶ 17). 

The Plan requires one level of internal appeal, and thus the October 16, 2017 

denial, which came in response to an appeal, exhausted the internal appeals process. (Id. 

at ¶ 18). Anthem had full discretionary authority to administer and pay benefits under the 

plan. (Id. at ¶ 9).

Under the terms of the Plan, Anthem is required to pay benefits for “Covered 

Services.” (Id. at ¶ 58; Doc. 1-2 at M3, M-22). Covered Services are those “performed, 

prescribed, directed or authorized by a Provider.” (Doc. 1-2 at M-112). The Plan defines 

“Provider” as “[a] duly licensed person or facility....” (Id. at M-117). The Plan defines 

“Facility” as:

a facility including but not limited to, a Hospital, freestanding 

Ambulatory Surgical Facility, Chemical Dependency Treatment 

Facility, Residential Treatment Center, Skilled Nursing Facility, 

Home Health Care Agency or mental health facility, as defined in 

this Certificate. The Facility must be licensed, accredited, registered 

or approved by the Joint Commission or the Commission on 

Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), as applicable, or 

meet specific rules set by [Defendant].

(Id. at M-118).

Covered Services are subject to conditions, Exclusions, limitations, terms, and 

provisions of the Plan. (Id. at M-22). The Plan states that excluded services are not 

covered “even if the service, supply, or equipment would otherwise be considered 

Medically Necessary.” (Id.). Medically Necessary is a service known to be effective, as 

proven by scientific evidence, in materially improving health outcomes; the most 

appropriate supply, setting or level of service that can safely be provided that cannot be 
4

omitted consistent with recognized professional standards of care; cost-effective 

compared to alternative interventions, not experimental; not primarily for the 

convenience of the insure; and not otherwise excluded. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 35; see Doc. 1-2 at 

M-114–115).

The pertinent portion of the “Non Covered Services/Exclusions” section of the 

Plan, under which Plaintiff’s claim was denied, provides:

We do not provide benefits for procedures, equipment, services, 

supplies or charges:

. . .

• Custodial Care, convalescent care or rest cures.

• Domiciliary care provided in a residential institution, 

treatment center, supervised living or halfway house, 

or school because a Member’s own home 

arrangements are not available or are unsuitable, and 

consisting chiefly of room and board, even if therapy 

is included.

• Care provided or billed by a hotel, health resort, 

convalescent home, rest home, nursing home or other 

extended care facility home for the aged, infirmary, 

school infirmary, institution providing education in 

special environments, supervised living or halfway 

house, or any similar facility or institution.

• Services or care provided or billed by a school, 

Custodial Care center for the developmentally 

disabled, halfway house, or outward bound programs, 

even if psychotherapy is included.

• Wilderness camps.

(Doc 1-2 at M-55, M-57, ¶ 22). 
5

The Plan does cover behavioral/mental health services at “Residential Treatment” 

in “a licensed Residential Treatment Center that offers individualized and intensive 

treatment that includes observation and assessment by a physician weekly or more often 

and rehabilitation, therapy, and education. (Id. at M-24). The Plan defines a “Residential 

Treatment Center” as:

A Provider licensed and operated as required by law, which 

includes:

1. Room, board and skilled nursing care (either an RN or 

LUN/LPN) available on-site at least eight

hours daily with 24 hour availability;

2. A staff with one or more Physicians available at all times.

3. Residential treatment takes place in a structured facilitybased setting.

4. The resources and programming to adequately diagnose, 

care and treat a psychiatric and/or

substance use disorder.

5. Facilities are designated residential, subacute, or 

intermediate care and may occur in care

systems that provide multiple levels of care.

6. Is fully accredited by The Joint Commission (TJC), the 

Commission on Accreditation of

Rehabiltation Facilities (CARF), the National Integrated 

Accreditation for Healthcare

Organizations (NIAHO), or the Council on Accreditation 

(COA).

(Id. at M-119–20).

Defendant’s motion seeks to dismiss Counts 1-3 of Plaintiff’s dismiss. Count 1,

brought on behalf of A.G. and the proposed class, seeks enforcement of the Plan because 
6

Plaintiff contends that the services received at Blue Ridge were not excluded under the 

Plan. Count 2 seeks enforcement of the Plan for breach of the protections of the Mental 

Health Parity and Addiction Act (“Parity Act”), which mandates parity between the 

“treatment limitations” placed on mental health benefits and medical/surgical benefits. 

(Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 40–48; 29 U.S.C. § 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii)). Count 3 is for breach of fiduciary 

duty for violation of the Parity Act. (Id. at ¶¶ 49–53). Both Counts 2 and 3 are in the 

alternative to Count 1.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates to test the 

sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) 

requires that the complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

While Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it 

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544 (2007)). Pleadings offering mere “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation 

of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

In fact, in determining a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a 

legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation[.]’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)). Further, “[f]actual allegations must be enough 
7

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Id.

Accordingly, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A claim is plausible where a “plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ 

but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the 

pleader is entitled to relief,’” and the case shall be dismissed. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2)). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Count 1 – Plaintiff’s Claim for Plan Benefits

Count 1 requests that the Court award benefits to Plaintiff under the Plan. “A civil 

action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits due to him 

under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify 

his rights to future benefits under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Here, the Court 

is unable to award benefits to Plaintiff because the services provided by Blue Ridge are 

expressly excluded under the Plan.

Plaintiff argues that the term “wilderness camps” is ambiguous, as it is undefined,

and does not encompass the services provided at Blue Ridge. Plaintiff argues that Blue 
8

Ridge is a “wilderness therapy program,” not a “wilderness camp.” See Williams v. Intl. 

Paper Co., 227 F.3d 706, 711 (6th Cir. 2000) (“when the terms of an ERISA plan are 

undefined, traditional principles of contract interpretation require a plan administrator to 

“interpret the provisions [of the plan] according to their plain meaning in an ordinary and 

popular sense.”) Plaintiff argues that “wilderness camps” could be understood to refer to 

such experiential programs such as Outward Bound. Plaintiff’s response to the motion to 

dismiss includes a table that shows how the services provided at Blue Ridge are different 

from the services provided at “wilderness experiential programs” like Outward Bound. 

(Doc. 21 at 6–7). This argument lacks merit. 

The Plan, directly above the “wilderness camp” exclusion, states that “outward 

bound programs” are excluded under the Plan. (Doc 1-2 at M-57, ¶ 22). A health benefit 

plan “should be read to give effect to all its provisions and to render them consistent with 

each other.” Gallo v. Moen, Inc., 813 F.3d 265, 270 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 63 (1995)). Because 

“outward bound programs” are already expressly excluded under the Plan, “wilderness 

camp” must be interpreted to encompass more than simply “outward bound programs.” 

Therefore, the Court disagrees that “wilderness camp” could be understood to refer to 

“outward bound programs.”

It is undisputed that Anthem had full discretionary authority to interpret the Plan. 

(Doc. 1 at ¶ 9). Where a plan administrator is given discretionary authority, judicial 

review is limited to whether the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. 
9

Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, (1989). Consequently, the 

Court must defer to Anthem’s interpretation of the Plan unless its interpretation is 

arbitrary and capricious. See Morgan v. SKF USA, Inc., 385 F.3d 989, 992 (6th Cir. 

2004) (the court “must accept a plan administrator’s rational interpretation of a plan even 

in the face of an equally rational interpretation offered by the participants.”); Valeck v. 

Watson Wyatt & Co., 92 F. App’x 270, 273 (6th Cir. 2004) (under the arbitrary and 

capricious standard, the court “must defer to the plan administrator’s interpretation that is 

rational in light of the plan’s provisions.”). 

As described in the complaint, Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness provides 

treatment in the wilderness. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 13, 14, 17). On its website, Blue Ridge even 

refers to the setting as a camp. (Doc. 10-2; Doc. 10-3).2 The Court simply cannot find 

that Anthem’s interpretation that Blue Ridge is a wilderness camp, and therefore 

excluded under the Plan, is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, Count 1 fails as a matter 

of law and is dismissed.

B. Count 2 and 3 – Parity Act 

Count 2 and 3 of the complaint are brought under the Parity Act. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1185a.

 2 The complaint refers to the Blue Ridge website. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 17). Because it is referred to in 

the Complaint and is central to Plaintiff’s claim that the Plan’s “wilderness camp” exclusion does 

not apply here, the Court may properly consider the Blue Ridge website exhibits that Anthem 

attaches to the motion to dismiss. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 

(6th Cir.2008) (noting that a court can consider “exhibits attached to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained 

therein”)
10

The Parity Act was “designed to end discrimination in the provision of coverage 

for mental health and substance use disorders as compared to medical and surgical 

conditions in employer-sponsored group health plans and health insurance coverage 

offered in connection with group health plans.” Am. Psychiatric Ass'n v. Anthem Health 

Plans, 50 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D. Conn. 2014) (quoting Coal. for Parity, Inc. v. Sebelius, 

709 F.Supp.2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2010)). Under the Parity Act, when a group health plan 

provides coverage for both medical benefits and mental health and substance abuse 

benefits, the plan must ensure that: 

[T]he treatment limitations applicable to such mental health 

or substance abuse disorder benefits are no more restrictive 

than the predominant treatment limitations applied to 

substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the 

plan (or coverage) and there are no separate treatment 

limitations that are applicable only with respect to mental 

health or substance use disorder benefits.

29 U.S.C. § 1185a(3)(A)(ii).

Under the Parity Act, “treatment limitations” include both “quantitative” and 

“nonquantitative” limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 2590.712. The Parity Act implementing 

regulations do not provide a comprehensive definition of “nonquantitative” limitations, 

but includes illustrative examples, including: “[r]estrictions based on geographic location, 

facility type, provider specialty, and other criteria that limit the scope or duration of 

benefits for services provided under the plan or coverage.” Id. at § 2590.712(c)(4)(C). 

The regulations establish six “classifications of benefits” for determining Parity Act 

compliance: (1) inpatient, in-network; (2) in-patient, out-of-network; (3) outpatient, in-
11

network, (4) outpatient, out-of-network; (5) emergency care; and (6) prescription 

drugs. Id. at 2590.712(c)(2)(i)–(ii)(A). Group health plans are prohibited from imposing:

[A] nonquantitative treatment limitation with respect to 

mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any 

classification unless, under the terms of the plan (or health 

insurance coverage) as written and in operation, any 

processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors 

used in applying the nonquantitative treatment limitation to 

mental health or substance use disorder benefits in the 

classification are comparable to, and are applied no more 

stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary 

standards, or other factors used in applying the limitation with 

respect to medical/surgical benefits in the classification.

Id. at 2590.712(c)(4)

To state a Parity Act violation, a plaintiff must allege:

(1) the insurance plan is of the type covered by the Parity Act; 

(2) the insurance plan provides both medical benefits and 

mental-health benefits; (3) the plan has a treatment limitation 

– either quantitative or nonquantitative – for one of those 

benefits that is more restrictive for mental-health treatment 

than it is for medical treatment; and (4) the mental-health 

treatment is in the same classification as the medical 

treatment to which it is being compared.

See id. at 2590.712(c)(2)(i); see also Bushnell v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., 2018 WL 

1578167, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018); A.H. by and through G.H. v. Microsoft 

Corporation Welfare Plan, 2018 WL 2684387, at * 6 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2018).

Here, Plaintiff contends that the Plan’s exclusion of “wilderness camps” violates 

the Parity Act because Defendant “explicitly covers medical and surgical services 

rendered at intermediate facilities such as at rehabilitation hospitals and skilled nursing 

facilities.” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 48). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims under the Parity Act 
12

must be dismissed because Plaintiff “(i) fails to identify any ‘treatment limitation’ that 

does not apply equally to mental health and a medical/surgical analogue, and (ii) cannot 

plausibly allege any facts showing that wilderness programs constitute intermediate care 

under the Parity Act.” (Doc. 10 at 11–12).

This year, several district courts have examined whether a blanket exclusion of 

wilderness camps/wilderness therapy programs violates the Parity Act. The Court is 

cognizant that the majority of district courts have denied motions to dismiss such claims 

brought under the Parity Act. 

In A.H. by & through G.H. v. Microsoft Corp. Welfare Plan, 2018 WL 2684387 

(W.D. Wash. June 5, 2018), the first court to examine the issue this year, the Western 

District of Washington dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that a categorical wilderness 

therapy exclusion violated the Parity Act. The A.H. court found that that dismissal was 

appropriate because plaintiff was unable to demonstrate “the wilderness program 

exclusion is only applied to mental health treatment.” Id. at *7.

However, in Vorpahl v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3518511 (D. 

Mass. July 20, 2018), the District of Massachusetts denied a motion to dismiss Parity Act 

claims because the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged “that a mental-health treatment is 

categorically excluded while a corresponding medical treatment is not.” Id. at *3. The 

Vorpahl court noted that there is a growing consensus “that a plan that covered skilled 

nursing facilities but not residential treatment programs violated the Parity Act....” Id.
13

In A.Z. by & through E.Z. Regence Blueshield, 333 F.Supp.3d 1069 (W.D. Wash. 

2018), the Western District of Washington found that a plaintiff sufficiently stated a 

claim under the Parity Act by alleging that an insurer “categorically denied, in practice, 

coverage for medically necessary services at outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare 

programs.” Id. at 1082. The A.Z. court agreed with the Vorpahl court that such 

exclusions qualify “as a discriminatory limitation.” Id.

Most recently, in Gallagher v. Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., 2018 WL 

4333988 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2018), the Southern District of New York agreed with the 

Vorpahl and A.Z. courts that a plaintiff survives a motion to dismiss in a claim for 

violation of the Parity Act by alleging that analogous medical/surgical treatment was 

offered in residential settings, like skilled nursing facilities, but not at a wilderness 

therapy camp. Id. at *8. Importantly, the Gallagher court held that, at the motion to 

dismiss stage, the relevant analysis 

is not whether benefits for wilderness therapy are available 

for medical/surgical patients, but rather whether the Plan has 

chosen to provide benefits for skilled nursing facilities and 

rehabilitation centers for medical/surgical patients, but chosen 

to deny benefits to those with mental health conditions who 

seek coverage for a residential treatment center offering 

wilderness therapy.

Id.

In Vorpahl, A.Z., and Gallagher, the healthcare plans at issue did not cover mental 

health services at residential treatment centers, but did cover services for medical/surgical 

services at comparable skilled nursing facilities/rehabilitation hospitals. Here, Plaintiff’s 
14

claims under the Parity Act ultimately fail because the Plan does provide for coverage of 

mental health services at residential treatment centers. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Plan violates the Parity Act because it includes services at 

intermediate facilities such as rehabilitation hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, but 

not “wilderness camps.” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 48). But the Plan does explicitly cover services at 

residential treatment centers – for both medical and mental health services – it simply 

does not cover any services performed at wilderness camps. (Doc. 1-2 at M-24, M-61, 

M-118–20). A residential treatment center is an intermediate facility analogue to a 

rehabilitation hospital and skilled nursing facility. Therefore, applying the standard 

outlined in Gallagher, because the Plan both provides benefits for services performed at 

residential treatment centers for medical/surgical patients and for mental health 

conditions, the Plan does not contain a discriminatory limitation.

Because the Plan equally covers mental health services and medical/surgical 

services at residential treatment centers, the Court cannot find that the Plan’s blanket 

exclusion of services at “wilderness camps” is a treatment limitation in violation of the 

Parity Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim under the Parity Act and 

dismissal of Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint is appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts 1–3 

(Doc. 10) is GRANTED.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

1/28/19