Court Opinion

ID: 9964374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 20:00:56.896583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:21.441023
License: Public Domain

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

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 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 ar-
       gues 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 doc-
       uments 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 ben-
       efits” under their insurance plans to Griffin. While seeking reim-
       bursements 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 to-
       day 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: 3 of 5

       23-13429                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       that United’s failure to supply this documentation violated statu-
       tory 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 rele-
       vant 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 fur-
       nish 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: 4 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 par-
       ticipant or beneﬁciary.” Id. at 932. When scrutinizing such assign-
       ments, 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 statu-
       tory 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 stat-
       utory penalties) claims.” Id. In the absence of more speciﬁc lan-
       guage, 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 pa-
       tients to her.
USCA11 Case: 23-13429      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 5 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 gen-
       eral language about the conferral of “rights and benefits.” In the
       absence of an assignment with more specific language, courts—in-
       cluding 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.