SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0621-22 

BRAINBUILDERS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

OPTUM, INC., OPTUM 

SERVICES, INC., 

OPTUMHEALTH HOLDINGS, 

LLC, OPTUMHEALTH 

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 

OPTUMHEALTH CARE 

SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

OPTUMHEALTH CARE 

SOLUTIONS, INC., OXFORD 

HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., 

OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NY), 

INC., OXFORD HEALTH PLANS 

(NJ), INC., OXFORD HEALTH 

PLANS LLC, 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE 

SERVICES, LLC, 

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE 

SERVICES, INC., UHIC 

HOLDINGS, INC., UNITED 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, and 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0621-22

 Defendants-Respondents. 

_______________________________

Argued April 9, 2024 – Decided April 19, 2024 

Before Judges Mayer, Enright and Augostini. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-8088-17.

Vafa Sarmasti argued the cause for appellant (Sarmasti 

PLLC, attorneys; Vafa Sarmasti, on the briefs). 

Robert J. Norcia argued the cause for respondents 

(Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, attorneys; 

Francis X. Manning, of counsel; Robert J. Norcia, on 

the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 Plaintiff BrainBuilders, LLC appeals from a September 12, 2022 order 

granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Optum, Inc., Optum 

Services, Inc., OptumHealth Holdings, LLC, OptumHealth Financial Services, 

Inc., OptumHealthcare Solutions, LLC, OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc.

(Optum entities), Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., Oxford Health Plans (NY), 

Inc., Oxford Health Plans (NJ), Inc., Oxford Health Plans LLC (Oxford entities), 

UnitedHealthcare Services, LLC, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., UnitedHealthcare 

Services, Inc., UHIC Holdings, Inc., United Behavioral Health, and 
3 A-0621-22

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company (UHC entities) (collectively, defendants). 

We affirm. 

This matter concerns letters dated July 25, 2017 and August 2017 sent by 

the Optum entities to BrainBuilders' patients following an investigation into 

purported fraud by individuals associated with BrainBuilders. 

BrainBuilders provides healthcare services to children on the autism 

spectrum. As an out-of-network or non-participating healthcare provider, 

BrainBuilders received reimbursement for claims only if a patient's health 

insurance plan allowed "out-of-network benefits" or the insurer made a "single 

case agreement" for the patient's care. 

The Optum entities are the health claims administrator for health plans 

issued or administered by the Oxford entities and UHC entities. The Optum 

entities do not sell or issue health insurance policies. Rather, they provide 

support for defendants who issued health insurance policies to individual 

insureds. 

The Optum entities also evaluate insurance claims submitted by providers 

to its affiliated insurers, including BrainBuilders. The Optum entities often 

investigate whether a provider has requested reimbursement beyond the 

provider's entitlement, such as by misrepresenting or inflating the services 
4 A-0621-22

provided. In January 2017 through approximately May 2017, the Optum entities 

reviewed BrainBuilders' claims submitted for reimbursement, due to the

significant number of claims and the amounts charged in comparison to 

BrainBuilders' peers. 

In June 2017, four individuals related to the management of BrainBuilders 

were arrested and charged with conspiracy to defraud Medicaid. A criminal 

complaint, alleging misappropriation of funds, was filed against several 

individuals affiliated with BrainBuilders. The arrests were reported in the news 

media and the Optum entities learned of the arrests on July 14, 2017. 

On July 25, 2017, the Optum entities sent letters to BrainBuilders' patients 

insured by the Oxford and UHC entities (July 2017 letters). The July 2017 

letters explained the Optum entities were suspending payment for services 

provided by BrainBuilders "due to potential insurance fraud and other violations 

of state and federal law." The letters, advising patients insured under healthcare 

plans issued by the Oxford and UHC entities, stated: 

Optum is responsible for making benefit coverage 

determinations for mental health and substance abuse 

services that are provided to Optum members. The 

availability of benefit coverage for a service is 

determined by the terms of your benefit plan. 

This letter is to notify you that, effective [thirty] days 

from [insert termination date], [insert provider name] 
5 A-0621-22

will no longer be reimbursed for services provided to 

you and/or your child/ren due to potential insurance 

fraud and other violations of state and federal law. 

Services provided by [insert provider name] after this 

date may not be covered under your benefit plan. 

If you are in active, ongoing treatment with this 

practitioner, you may continue to receive services from 

this practitioner until [thirty] days after [insert

termination date], subject to medical record review or 

other benefit plan requirements. 

Optum is able to assist you in making arrangements for 

your continued treatment with a participating 

practitioner. Please contact us at your earliest 

convenience at 866-xxx-xxxx so we can assist you in 

locating a new provider. Our goal is to make any 

needed transition in your treatment as smooth as 

possible.

Again, if you choose to continue to see your current 

practitioner beyond [thirty] days after [insert 

termination date], you may be financially responsible 

for the cost of those services and have no coverage

available under your benefit plan. 

In August 2017, the Optum entities sent letters to BrainBuilders' patients. 

(August 2017 letters). The letters stated: 

Dear [name redacted]: 

United Behavioral Health (UBH) is responsible for 

making benefit coverage determinations for mental 

health and substance abuse services that are provided to 

Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. NY-PPO members. The 

availability of benefit coverage for a service is 

determined by the terms of your benefit plan. To 
6 A-0621-22

review information about your specific plan coverage, 

please refer to the benefit information provided by your 

health plan. 

I have reviewed your treatment plan that was submitted 

by Brain[B]uilders[,] LLC, and I have determined that 

coverage is not available under your benefit plan for the 

requested services of Applied Behavior Analysis. 

As described in the section of your Certificate of 

Coverage: Based on current information available to 

the plan, authorization is not available due to quality of 

care or member safety concerns and is excluded under 

your plan as Non-Professional Care which is an express 

exclusion from coverage under your plan. 

This determination does not mean that you do not 

require additional health care, or that you need to be 

discharged. Decisions about continuation of treatment 

should be made by you and your provider. The purpose 

of this letter is to inform you that coverage is not 

available under your benefit plan for the requested

service. On 8/8/2017 1:23 PM CDT we notified your 

provider of this determination by telephone. 

Under federal law, you have a right to request the 

diagnosis and diagnosis code provided to us by your

provider. Alternately, you may request this information 

from your provider. 

Please refer to the enclosed form(s) for information 

about your available options to appeal or dispute this 

determination. 

 Based on the July and August 2017 letters, BrainBuilders filed a lawsuit 

against defendants. BrainBuilders asserted the following causes of action: 

conspiracy; tortious interference with business relations; tortious interference 
7 A-0621-22

with prospective economic advantage; negligence, trade libel; defamation, libel, 

and slander; and unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. BrainBuilders alleged 

the statements in the July and August 2017 letters were false and defamatory. 

 Defendants moved for summary judgment and BrainBuilders opposed the 

motion. In support of summary judgment, defendants argued the July and 

August 2017 letters were subject to a qualified privilege because the Optum 

entities had a legal obligation to inform members of the true reason for 

suspending BrainBuilders' services and, eventually, denying authorizations. 

Additionally, defendants asserted the July and August 2017 letters were not 

reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning, were true or expressions of 

opinion, and BrainBuilders failed to demonstrate the statements in the letters

were actuated by malice or that it suffered damages. 

 On August 26, 2022, the motion judge heard the parties' arguments on 

defendants' motion for summary judgment. In a September 12, 2022 order and 

written statement of reasons, the judge granted defendants' motion and 

dismissed BrainBuilders' claims with prejudice. 

 The judge found the statements in the July and August 2017 letters sent 

by the Optum entities were subject to qualified immunity. The judge explained 

the healthcare industry in New Jersey is heavily regulated and healthcare service 
8 A-0621-22

providers "are contractually required by health benefits plans to communicate 

with members and, therefore, deal with them in good faith regarding all things 

that implicate the availability of benefits under a plan." Thus, the judge 

concluded, "[t]he statements communicated to [BrainBuilders] and its patients 

in the July 2017 and August 2017 [l]etters [were] plainly subject to and protected 

by a qualified privilege." 

Additionally, the judge found the Optum entities commenced an 

investigation into BrainBuilders' claims for reimbursement prior to the arrests 

of individuals associated with the company. The judge stated the Optum entities 

were suspicious of BrainBuilders' claims for reimbursement based on its recent 

increase in patients treated and the volume of claims it submitted when 

compared to similar service providers. The judge noted the Optum entities 

commenced a formal fraud investigation into BrainBuilders' activities upon 

learning of the arrests of individuals associated with BrainBuilders. As the 

judge found, the results of the investigation led the Optum entities to suspect 

BrainBuilders "potentially committed insurance fraud" and "raised questions as 

to the legitimacy of the services rendered by [BrainBuilders] and the bills 

submitted to [d]efendants." 
9 A-0621-22

 The judge rejected BrainBuilders' defamation claim. He found "[a] 

reasonable person would not interpret Optum's July 2017 and August 2017 

[l]etters as defamatory." Because the July 2017 letters used the word "potential" 

preceding the word "fraud," the judge found the "use of the word 'potential' 

remove[d] any suggestion that BrainBuilders actually committed fraud and other 

violations of state and federal law." The judge concluded "the July 2017 [l]etters 

communicated the reason for the suspension and merely indicated that insurance 

fraud by BrainBuilders was 'capable of coming into being; possible if the 

necessary conditions exist.'" Regarding the August 2017 letters, the judge 

determined those letters "merely communicated Optum's 'concerns' about 

'quality of care or member safety' in making a decision regarding the availability 

of coverage for BrainBuilders' services." 

 The judge specifically highlighted the context in which the Optum entities 

sent the July and August 2017 letters. He explained that shortly before the letters 

were sent to BrainBuilders' patients, "several individuals at the highest ranks of 

BrainBuilders, as well as several other parents of BrainBuilders' patients, had 

been arrested for conspiracy to commit Medicaid fraud (i.e., insurance fraud), 

and news of their arrests was widespread in the media." Further, around the 

same time period, the judge noted the Optum entities "separately uncovered 
10 A-0621-22

evidence suggesting BrainBuilders was engaged in fraud, waste, or abuse." 

Thus, the judge concluded, "[w]hen read with context, no reasonable person" 

could interpret the July or August 2017 letters "as fallacious or injurious." 

 The judge expressly rejected BrainBuilders' claim that the statements in 

the July and August 2017 letters were defamatory. The judge explained truth 

was an absolute defense to a defamation claim and found the statements in the 

July and August 2017 letters "were true." 

Even before the arrests of individuals associated with BrainBuilders, the 

judge noted "Optum had already begun reviewing [BrainBuilders'] claims to 

investigate its high utilization." After the arrests were reported in the news 

media, the judge explained the Optum entities opened a formal fraud 

investigation. Based on that formal fraud investigation, the judge stated forensic 

accountants for the Optum entities "uncovered evidence suggesting the 

existence of potential insurance fraud not only by [BrainBuilders]" but by 

individuals "who had obtained health benefits plans from Oxford Health Plans 

(NJ), Inc. and used those plans almost exclusively for reimbursement of 

[BrainBuilders'] services." Thus, the judge determined the July 2017 letters 

conveyed the Optum entities' true reason for suspending authorization for 

BrainBuilders' services. 
11 A-0621-22

 Similarly, the judge found the August 2017 letters conveyed the true 

reason for the denial of authorizations for BrainBuilders' services. As the judge 

noted, "[a]llegations of potential health insurance fraud necessarily implicate[d] 

the value and quality of the services rendered." The judge concluded "the 

statement[s] in the July 2017 and August 2017 letters [were] not defamatory" 

because the statements were true. 

Additionally, the judge found BrainBuilders failed to demonstrate it 

suffered actual damages to prevail on its defamation claim. After months of 

discovery, the judge concluded BrainBuilders failed to "suppl[y] any 

documentation or other evidence of actual harm to its reputation, nor ha[d] it 

provided proof that it lost any patients or otherwise suffered a general 

diminution in business value that was the natural and direct result of Optum's 

allegedly defamatory statements." 

 The judge also rejected BrainBuilders' claim that defendants' statements 

in the July and August 2017 letters were made with actual malice to prevail on 

its defamation claim. The judge found BrainBuilders was required "to present 

'clear and convincing evidence' that could 'support a reasonable jury finding' that 

Optum's statements in the July 2017 and August 2017 [l]etters were motivated 

by 'actual malice'" by showing the statements were knowingly false or made 
12 A-0621-22

with reckless disregard for the truth. The judge concluded BrainBuilders was 

"unable to make such a showing." Further, because the Optum entities 

undertook a forensic analysis of BrainBuilders' activities, which revealed 

"dubious billing and treatment issues," the judge determined "Optum's conduct 

was not motivated by actual malice, but by a detailed investigation which 

resulted in the discovery of concerning information." 

 Because the judge found the statements in the July and August 2017 letters 

were "not defamatory," he dismissed BrainBuilders' conspiracy and tortious 

interference claims, as those claims were predicated on the same conduct and 

statements as the defamation claims. 

 The judge also dismissed BrainBuilders' negligence claim, finding such a 

theory must be asserted as a claim for defamation or trade libel. Because the 

judge rejected the defamation and trade libel claims against defendants, he 

explained BrainBuilders' negligence claim necessarily failed. 

 Similarly, the judge dismissed BrainBuilders' quasi-contract claims for 

unjust enrichment and quantum meruit "because an insurer derives no benefit 

from the provision of services on an insured." Relying on a federal case, the 

judge noted that the benefit, if any, "is not the provision of the healthcare 

services per se, but rather the discharge of the obligation the insurer owes to the 
13 A-0621-22

insured." Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 967 F.3d 218, 240 

(3d Cir. 2020). The judge determined BrainBuilders' quasi-contract claims 

required demonstration that it conferred a benefit on defendants. Because 

BrainBuilders failed to present evidence of any benefit it conferred on 

defendants, the judge dismissed those claims. 

 On appeal, BrainBuilders argues the judge erred in granting summary 

judgment to defendants. Specifically, BrainBuilders contends the Optum 

entities were not entitled to a qualified privilege and the issue should have been 

presented to a jury. BrainBuilders also asserts it presented evidence in support 

of its defamation claim, including evidence that defendants' statements were 

made with actual malice and it suffered specific damages. Additionally, 

BrainBuilders argues the judge erred in dismissing its other tort claims and 

quasi-contract claims. 

 We review a judge's decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standard as the trial court. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 

78 (2022). We must consider "whether the competent evidential materials 

presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are 

sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in 

favor of the non-moving party." Ibid. (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 
14 A-0621-22

of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)). If there is no genuine issue of material fact, 

we must then "decide whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law." 

Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007). We 

accord no deference to a trial court's legal conclusions and review issues of law 

de novo. Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013). 

 We first consider whether the statements in the July and August 2017 

letters were either true or constituted opinions to establish a defense to 

BrainBuilders' defamation claim. 

"Our law of defamation is grounded on the principle that people should be 

free 'to enjoy their reputations unimpaired by false and defamatory attacks.'" 

Fees v. Trow, 105 N.J. 330, 336 (1987) (quoting Swede v. Passaic Daily News, 

30 N.J. 320, 331 (1959)). "A defamatory statement, generally, is one that 

subjects an individual to contempt or ridicule, one that harms a person's 

reputation by lowering the community's estimation of [them] or by deterring 

others from wanting to associate or deal with [them.]" Petro-Lubricant Testing 

Labs., Inc. v. Adelman, 233 N.J. 236, 253 (2018) (quoting Durando v. Nutley 

Sun, 209 N.J. 235, 248-29 (2012)). To prevail on a defamation claim, a party 

must demonstrate: "(1) the assertion of a false and defamatory statement 

concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third 
15 A-0621-22

party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher." Leang 

v. Jersey City Bd. of Ed., 198 N.J. 557, 585 (2009). 

"Whether the meaning of a statement is susceptible of a defamatory 

meaning is a question of law for the court." Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 

529 (1994). Under the first element necessary to prevail on a defamation claim, 

a plaintiff must demonstrate the publisher "made a false and defamatory 

statement." G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 292-93 (2011). "If a statement is not 

legally defamatory, summary judgment is appropriate." G.D. v. Kenny, 411 N.J. 

Super. 176, 188 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd, 205 N.J. 275 (2011). 

True statements are "not actionable as defamation." Hart v. City of Jersey 

City, 308 N.J. Super. 487, 492 (App. Div. 1998). Our courts have stated that 

true statements are "absolutely protected under the First Amendment" from 

liability for defamation. G.D., 205 N.J. at 293 (quoting Ward, 136 N.J. at 530). 

True statements may provide a defense even when the statement contains "minor 

inaccuracies." Id. at 294. The hallmark of the defense is "substantial truth." 

Ibid. (quoting Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 516 

(1991)). 

 Here, the allegedly defamatory statements in the July and August 2017 

letters related to BrainBuilders' "potential fraud," potential "violations of state 
16 A-0621-22

and federal law," and concerns for "quality of care or member safety." It is 

uncontroverted that several of BrainBuilders' officers were arrested for 

conspiracy to defraud Medicaid in association with "income they received from 

BrainBuilders." These individuals were arrested because they potentially 

committed fraud. Additionally, the arrests raised legitimate concerns regarding 

the quality of care rendered by BrainBuilders. 

 While BrainBuilders disputed the Optum entities' motivation for 

undertaking a formal investigation, it is undisputed that the Optum entities 

investigated the claims submitted by BrainBuilders after the reported arrest of 

several of BrainBuilders' officers. Given the fact that several of BrainBuilders' 

officers were arrested for defrauding Medicaid in connection with 

BrainBuilders' business operations, the Optum entities' statements in the July 

and August 2017 letters were true and presented a complete defense to the 

defamation claim. 

 We reject BrainBuilders' argument that the statements in the July and 

August 2017 letters were false. Contrary to BrainBuilders' assertions, the 

Optum entities never stated BrainBuilders committed insurance fraud or 

violated criminal laws. Rather, the letters advised patients of "potential 

insurance fraud and other violations of state and federal law." The judge relied 
17 A-0621-22

on the dictionary definition of the word "potential" as "[c]apable of coming into 

being; possible if the necessary conditions exist." See also Black's Law 

Dictionary 1413 (11th ed. 2019). Applying this definition, the use of the term 

"potential" is not an affirmative statement that BrainBuilders violated the law or 

committed insurance fraud. The July 2017 letters never stated BrainBuilders 

engaged in "widespread illegal conduct." Nothing about the Optum entities' use 

of the word "potential" rendered the July 2017 letters misleading. Nor did the 

July 21017 letters inform patients that BrainBuilders committed fraud or other 

illegal acts to support its defamation claim.

Similarly, the fact that BrainBuilders was not charged with any crime, 

separate from its officers who were charged with fraud, does not render the 

statements in the July and August 2017 letters untruthful. We see no distinction 

for purposes of a defamation claim between BrainBuilders as a company and the 

individuals associated with BrainBuilders who were charged with a crime. The 

veil of suspicion regarding potential fraud fell on BrainBuilders as well as its 

officers, even if the company was not named in the criminal complaint. 

We similarly reject BrainBuilders' argument that defendants bore the 

burden of demonstrating substandard, unsafe, or unprofessional patient care. To 

prevail on its defamation claims, BrainBuilders had to demonstrate the 
18 A-0621-22

statements in the July and August 2017 letters were false. G.D., 205 N.J. at 292-

93. BrainBuilders failed to do so. 

Further, BrainBuilders' reliance on the Optum entities' September 14, 

2017 report to demonstrate the statements in the July and August 2017 letters 

were defamatory is misplaced. The September 2017 report was issued after the 

Optum entities sent the alleged defamatory letters to BrainBuilders' patients. 

Because we are satisfied the July and August 2017 letters failed to satisfy 

the first element to sustain a claim for defamation–that the letters contained a 

false and defamatory statement–we need not address BrainBuilders' arguments 

related to the judge's determinations regarding qualified privilege, actual malice, 

and actual damages. 

 We next consider BrainBuilders' claim that the judge erred in dismissing 

its claims for tortious interference with current business relations, tortious 

interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligence. We 

disagree. 

 "[I]f an intentional tort count . . . is predicated upon the same conduct on 

which the defamation count is predicated, the defamation cause completely 

comprehends" the intentional tort claims. LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 323 N.J. 

Super. 391, 417 (App. Div. 1999); see also Binkewitz v. Allstate Ins. Co., 222 
19 A-0621-22

N.J. Super. 501, 516 (App. Div. 1988) (holding "words which are absolutely 

privileged against an action for defamation are also absolutely privileged against 

an action for tortious interference with contract or economic advantage."). 

Additionally, "a party who claims that its reputation has been damaged by a false 

statement cannot circumvent the strictures of the law of defamation . . . by 

labeling its action as one for negligence." Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. 

Co., Inc., 191 N.J. Super. 202, 217 (Law Div. 1983), aff'd, 104 N.J. 125 (1986). 

 Here, the judge found BrainBuilders' other tort claims were "predicated 

on the same conduct and statements" as its defamation claim. Thus, the judge 

properly dismissed BrainBuilders' other tort claims as duplicative of the 

defamation claim. 

We next consider BrainBuilders' argument that the judge erred in 

dismissing its quasi-contract claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. 

Again, we disagree. 

 "To prove a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must demonstrate that 

the opposing party 'received a benefit and that retention of that benefit without 

payment would be unjust.'" Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 288 (2016) 

(quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 110 (2007)). The party 

must also "show that it expected remuneration from the defendant at the time it 
20 A-0621-22

performed or conferred a benefit on [the] defendant and that the failure of 

remuneration enriched [the] defendant beyond its contractual rights." Ibid. 

(quoting Iliadis, 191 N.J. at 110). 

 "Quantum meruit is a form of quasi-contractual recovery and 'rests on the 

equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich [themselves] 

unjustly at the expense of another.'" Starkey, Kelly, Blaney & White v. Est. of 

Nicolaysen, 172 N.J. 60, 68 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437 (1992)). To prevail, the 

plaintiff must establish "(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the 

acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an 

expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the 

services." Ibid. (quoting Longo v. Shore & Reich, Ltd., 25 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 

1994)); see also F. Bender, Inc. v. Jos. L. Muscarelle, Inc., 304 N.J. Super. 282, 

285 (App. Div. 1997) (noting quantum meruit requires unjust enrichment). 

 Here, the record is devoid of evidence showing BrainBuilders conferred 

any benefit on defendants to prevail on its unjust enrichment claim. 

BrainBuilders alleged it conferred a benefit on defendants by way of "services 

that were provided by BrainBuilders and for which there has been no 

compensation or with respect to which there has been substantial 
21 A-0621-22

underpayment." BrainBuilders further alleged it "expected to be paid for the 

services it provided to patients that were or are insured by. . . [d]efendants." 

 To succeed on its quasi-contract claims, BrainBuilders was required to 

demonstrate it performed or conferred a benefit upon defendants and expected 

remuneration. In the July and August 2017 letters, the Optum entities advised 

BrainBuilders it would no longer receive reimbursement for submitted claims. 

In light of the statements in the July and August 2017 letters, BrainBuilders 

failed to explain why it continued to expect compensation or identify services 

provided to specific patients for which it expected to be paid. Moreover, 

BrainBuilders conferred only benefits to the insured members and not 

defendants. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied BrainBuilders failed to 

proffer any support for its unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims. 

 To the extent we have not addressed any remaining arguments, those 

arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed.