Opinion ID: 212733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Quarterly Report & Earnings Call, First Quarter 2007

Text: On a conference call detailing first quarter 2007 results, held May 1, 2007, Mr. Gregory reiterated his usual statements about generally satisfactory reimbursement. He again noted that the AMA Editorial Panel had the coding of the procedure under review and that the timing of its decision was uncertain. Finally, he reiterated the company's belief that the existing neurology codes were appropriate, listing a number of factors, including that the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule details the codes and corresponding RVUs for [the] procedure. Id. at 56. Anima claims that the statement is misleading for all of the same reasons cited with respect to the other statements. In addition, Anima contends that the statement regarding the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule was blatantly false, because [t]he Director of Reimbursement had expressly told [the defendants] that the fee schedule and RVUs assigned to [the neurology codes] were not weighted or valued for the NC-Stat and could not be used for automated nerve conduction studies performed with the NC-Stat test. Id. at 57. The difficulty for Anima remains that, like the other allegations concerning the experts' opinions, we have not required dissenting internal opinions to be disclosed. See Cooperman, 171 F.3d at 49; see also discussion supra at II.C.1. [8] On May 9, 2007, NeuroMetrix filed its quarterly report for the first quarter of 2007, a full two pages of which are excerpted into the complaint. In the excerpt, the company modified its language in earlier statements about satisfactory reimbursement to reflect several then-emerging problems and stated that [a] number of third-party payers, including commercial payers, have taken and may continue to take the position of not reimbursing our customers for their use of the NC-Stat System. R.32 at 57. The disclosure then notes that Medicare providers covering twenty states had indicated at various times that they would not reimburse under the existing codes, but that one of those decisions subsequently had been reversed; further, regional Blue Cross Blue Shield carriers had adopted policies of not reimbursing the procedure, calling it experimental and investigational. Id. at 58. The statement noted that, in certain regions, lower reimbursement and higher claim denials had been reported and that the future outcome of the reimbursement picture could materially and adversely impact our revenues and profitability. Id. at 58. It included information about the AMA Editorial Panel's examination of the appropriate codes, noting that the AMA could potentially take a position that could reduce or eliminate the reimbursement for the NC-Stat System and could have the impact of deterring usage by our customers. Id. Further, it noted that new paperwork requirements to document the medical necessity of the procedure were negatively impacting the use of the system and were having an adverse impact on our revenues. Id. Finally, it repeated the statements in a prior disclosure that various reimbursement policies from insurance carriers concerning related topicssuch as training requirements for physicians performing nerve conduction studiesseemed targeted at limiting reimbursement for the NC-Stat and similar procedures; these policies were already affecting NeuroMetrix revenues. Again, we conclude that these statements are not misleading for failure to include the facts advanced by the plaintiffs. Indeed, the company's statements are specific about the reimbursement problems and their probable impact on the company's earnings.