[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13429

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

W. A. GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant- Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04950-SEG

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13429

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

W.A. Griffin, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing her Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

claims against United Healthcare Services, Inc. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred in concluding that she did not have 

the right to sue under ERISA for statutory damages. After careful 

consideration, we affirm. 

I

Griffin is a dermatologist who has filed many pro se suits in 

this Court.1 This particular case concerns her efforts to obtain documents from United Healthcare Services Inc. connected to her 

treatment of two patients. Upon receiving services from Griffin, 

both patients signed documents that assigned their “rights and benefits” under their insurance plans to Griffin. While seeking reimbursements for treating the patients from United, Griffin alleges 

that she requested documentation from United but that it failed to 

provide the information. 2 Thereafter, Griffin filed suit alleging 

1 See, e.g., Griffin v. Coca-Cola Refreshments U.S., Inc., 989 F.3d 923, 927 (11th Cir. 

2021) (“Our other opinions have been unpublished; we choose to publish today in hopes of resolving this recurring litigation.”). 

2 We express no view on whether Griffin adequately pleaded that United, 

which is the claims administrator for the insurance plans at issue, is a “plan 

administrator” under ERISA because resolving that question is unnecessary to 

decide this appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-13429 Opinion of the Court 3

that United’s failure to supply this documentation violated statutory requirements of ERISA and that she was entitled to statutory 

damages. 

The district court dismissed Griffin’s complaint because it 

concluded that the assignment of rights signed by Griffin’s patients 

did not confer an independent right for Griffin to pursue ERISA 

statutory penalties on their behalf. This is Griffin’s appeal. 

II

We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, 312 F.3d 1222, 

1225 (11th Cir. 2002). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent 

standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be 

liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 

1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Still, a pro se litigant is “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).

As relevant here, ERISA requires plan administrators to furnish a plan “participant” or “beneficiary” with certain information

elsewhere specified in the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). If the plan 

administrator refuses to provide such information or fails to do so

in 30 days, a court may impose a penalty in “the amount of up to 

$100 a day from the date of such failure or refusal.”3 Id. “[T]o 

3 The penalty was increased to $110 per day via regulation for claims filed after 

July 29, 1997. 29 C.F.R. § 2575.502c-1. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13429

maintain an action under ERISA, a plaintiff must have standing to 

sue under the statute.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 931.4 

Although healthcare providers like Griffin generally are not 

“participants” or “beneficiaries” under ERISA, we have stated that 

a healthcare provider “may obtain derivative standing for payment 

of medical benefits through a written assignment from a plan participant or beneficiary.” Id. at 932. When scrutinizing such assignments, we have emphasized that the transfer of the general right 

to recover benefits provided by an ERISA plan does not necessarily 

transfer the right to pursue non-payment claims, including statutory penalties. Id.5 Thus, to assess whether one has transferred the 

right to assert claims for statutory penalties under ERISA, we must 

“first determine the scope of the patients’ assignments to [the 

healthcare provider]” and “whether they purport to give her the 

right to bring . . . non-payment (breach of fiduciary duties and statutory penalties) claims.” Id. In the absence of more specific language, a patient does not transfer the right to assert ERISA claims 

for statutory penalties when she executes a written assignment 

4 Notably, in this context, standing “is not jurisdictional, Article III standing, 

but rather the right to make a claim under the statute.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 931 

n.4. 

5 Here, again, “we need not decide whether the assignment of nonpayment 

claims provides derivative standing.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 932 n.5. Even if we 

assume such standing exists, the assignments at issue here do not specifically 

confer the right to pursue statutory penalties under ERISA from Griffin’s patients to her. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-13429 Opinion of the Court 5

stating “[t]his is a direct legal assignment of my rights and benefits 

under the policy.” Id. at 932–33. 

III

The principles we articulated in Griffin show why the district 

court did not err in dismissing Griffin’s suit. Griffin, 989 F.3d at 

932–33. The assignments signed by Griffin’s patients contain general language about the conferral of “rights and benefits.” In the 

absence of an assignment with more specific language, courts—including this one—have repeatedly held that Griffin lacks statutory 

standing to bring ERISA claims for statutory penalties on behalf of 

her patients. See Griffin v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 641 F. App’x 869, 

872 n.4 (11th Cir. 2016); Griffin, 989 F.3d at 1237 n.1. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 5 of 5