Court Opinion

ID: 9963977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 17:00:46.889676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:07.262655
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _______________

                                       No. 23-1096
                                     _______________

                       THE PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, P.A.,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

               CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
                   XYZ CORP., 1-10 (fictitious bodies corporate);
               SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; MULTIPLAN, INC.;
                  SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING LLC OPEN ACCESS
                    PLUS MEDICAL BENEFITS GOLD PLAN
                              _______________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                              For the District of New Jersey
                                (D.C. No. 3-17-cv-02055)
                      District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
                                    _______________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                  January 16, 2024

                Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

                                  (Filed: April 26, 2024)
                                    _______________

                                        OPINION
                                     _______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

       
        This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
       The Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. (“TPSC”) wants compensatory damages from

Multiplan, Inc. (“Multiplan”) for an alleged breach of contract. TPSC argues that

Multiplan wrongly allowed Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (“Cigna”) to

underpay for medical services that TPSC provided to K.D., one of Cigna’s beneficiaries.

If that already sounds complicated, it’s because it is. The key to the present dispute,

however, is straightforward. While TPSC believed that its contract with Multiplan

guaranteed a set payment rate for services rendered to insurance plan beneficiaries, the

plain language of the agreement contains no such promise. Furthermore, Cigna and

TPSC do not have a contractual relationship; only Cigna and Multiplan and, separately,

Multiplan and TPSC do. Therefore, in essence, TPSC asserts a claim against Multiplan

based on Cigna’s actions and, for that reason, the District Court held that TPSC failed to

state a contract claim. We agree and will affirm.

I.     BACKGROUND

       A.     Facts1

              1.       The Multiplan Contract

       This contract dispute centers on an agreement between TPSC and Multiplan (the

“TPSC-Multiplan Contract”) involving something called the Multiplan Network.2 At a

       1
          The following facts are taken from TPSC’s proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint. Because we write primarily for the parties, and because the District Court has
set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not repeat that history here
in its entirety.
       2
       TPSC originally contracted with Beech Street, which Multiplan acquired in
March 2010. For clarity, we will refer throughout this opinion to Multiplan, not Beech
                                             2
high level, the Multiplan Network is a group of medical providers (“Providers”) seeking

payment for medical services from “Payors,” which are primarily insurance companies.

The Payors buy medical services on behalf of their insurance plan beneficiaries (“Eligible

Persons”). When such Eligible Persons receive medically necessary services from

Providers, the “Covered Services” may be paid by Payors to Providers at a discounted

rate set under each Provider’s contract with Multiplan. Multiplan contracts individually

with each Provider and each Payor regarding their access to services within the network.

          TPSC is a licensed medical practice in New Jersey that specializes in plastic and

reconstructive surgery. TPSC contracted with Multiplan to become a “Provider” in its

“networks of health care providers for purchasers of health care services[.]” (App. at 57.)

According to TPSC, as a Provider under the TPSC-Multiplan Contract, it must be

reimbursed for 85% of the charges – less any applicable co-payments, deductibles, and

co-insurance – (the “Multiplan Rate”) that it bills to “Payors,” or “the parties responsible

for the payment” of services under the contract. (App. at 57.)

          Cigna also contracted with Multiplan to “utilize the Multiplan Network for the

benefit of members, participants, beneficiaries, or insureds under policies or benefit plans

administered by Cigna” (the “Cigna-Multiplan Agreement”).3 (App. at 11.) As TPSC

Street.
          3
       The Cigna-Multiplan Agreement is not in the record, nor are any claims against
Cigna before us.

                                               3
sees things, when it serves a Cigna-covered patient and Cigna fails to pay the Multiplan

Rate to TPSC, Multiplan must pay the difference.

       More specifically, TPSC relies on Section 4.2 of the TPSC-Multiplan Contract,

which provides, in relevant part: “Payment for Covered Services under this Agreement is

the sole responsibility of the Payor and shall be the lesser of Provider’s usual billed

charges or the reimbursement amount provided in Exhibit A[.]” (App. at 59.) Exhibit A,

attached to the agreement, states that “Covered Services will be reimbursed at 85% of

usual billed charges, less applicable Copayments, Deductibles and Coinsurance.” (App.

at 65; see also App. at 53 (Contract Update) (“Reimbursement fees. … [TPSC] will be

reimbursed under [the Contract] for services provided to members …, which is equal to

eighty-five (85%) percent of your billed charges[.]”).) The contract thus sets forth a

discount rate (85%) at which a Payor may reimburse Covered Services, defined as

“health care services provided pursuant to a Plan.” (App. at 57.)

       The contract, of course, has other pertinent provisions. Section 2.3 of the TPSC-

Multiplan Contract, headed “Liability for Claims Decisions,” provides:

       Payors shall be liable for … the payment of Payors’ portions of claims … .
       [Multiplan] is not a Payor and shall not be responsible or liable for any claims
       decisions or for the payment of any claims submitted by Provider for
       furnishing Covered Services or non-Covered Services to Eligible Persons.
       [Multiplan] shall not be an insurer, guarantor or underwriter of the
       responsibility or liability of any Payor or any other party to provide benefits
       pursuant to any Plan.

(App. at 58.) And, Section 4.4, “Limitation on Billing Eligible Persons[,]” confirms that

“in no event … shall Provider bill, charge, collect a deposit from, seek compensation,

remuneration or reimbursement from … persons other than the applicable Payor for

                                              4
Covered Services.” (App. at 59.) The parties do not dispute that Cigna falls within the

definition of a Payor under the TPSC-Multiplan Contract. Nor do they dispute that

Multiplan does not. (App. at 58 (“[Multiplan] is not a Payor[.]”).)

       Moreover, Section 2.1 provides that Multiplan’s obligation under the Contract is

to “use reasonable efforts to market … and to solicit Network Access Agreements.”

(App. at 58.) Section 3.3, titled “Participation in [Multiplan] Networks[,]” expands on

this and explicitly provides that, by participating, “Provider understands and

acknowledges that … depending on the applicable Plan, Covered Services may be

covered under the Eligible Person’s in-network or out-of-network benefit.” (App. at 59

(emphasis added).) Furthermore, Section 8.4, “Entire Agreement/Applicability of

Agreement[,]” states:

       Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, the
       applicability of this Agreement to an Eligible Person is subject to the terms
       of the applicable Network Access Agreement and Plan. For example, if the
       applicable Network Access Agreement does not include access to this
       Agreement for primary network services and Provider participates in the
       Payor’s primary network applicable to the Eligible Person, that network
       contract will apply to Covered Services rendered to that Eligible Person and
       will supersede this Agreement.

(App. at 62 (emphasis added).)

       With this contractual backdrop, we turn to the allegedly underpaid medical bill.

                   2.       The Disputed Payment

       In 2015, TPSC rendered breast reconstruction surgery to K.D., a participant and

beneficiary of an employee health benefit plan (the “Plan”) sponsored by her employer,

                                             5
Sunrise Senior Living (“Sunrise”), and administered by Cigna.4 K.D. assigned her rights

under the Plan to TPSC. TPSC in turn billed $184,962 to Cigna for K.D.’s medically

necessary services, but Cigna – on behalf of Sunrise – paid TPSC only $1,975.04, instead

of $157,217.70, which equates to 85% of the billed services. TPSC thus alleges that

Multiplan owes them the remaining $155,242.66.

       B.     Procedural History

       After exhausting all requisite claim appeal procedures and administrative

proceedings under the Plan, TPSC filed suit against Cigna.5 The District Court dismissed

three counts of TPSC’s Second Amended Complaint and granted it leave to file a third

amended complaint to add Multiplan as a defendant. In 2018, TPSC filed the Third

Amended Complaint (“TAC”).6 Defendants moved for dismissal, and TPSC cross-

       4
         As a Plan participant, Cigna issued K.D. an identification card bearing
Multiplan’s logo, indicating that Cigna participated in the Multiplan Network and that
K.D. was authorized to be treated by providers in the Network. TPSC alleges that it
relied upon the Multiplan logo on the card in deciding whether to perform medical
services.
       5
         TPSC originally filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, asserting breach
of contract claims. Cigna removed the case to federal court on the basis of ERISA
preemption, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. In the District Court, TPSC filed
an amended complaint, asserting a single claim against Cigna – wrongful denial of
benefits under ERISA. TPSC then filed a second amended complaint, adding Sunrise as
a defendant and asserting the following five causes of action: (1) breach of contract
against Cigna; (2) negligent misrepresentation against Cigna; (3) wrongful denial of
benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA against Cigna and Sunrise; (4) violation of §
502(c)(1) of ERISA, on the basis of Cigna and Sunrise’s alleged failure to respond to
TPSC’s request for Plan documents within 30 days; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty,
pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of ERISA, against Cigna and Sunrise.

       TPSC’s third amended complaint, in which TPSC added Multiplan as a
       6

defendant, asserted the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract against Cigna;
                                             6
moved to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging six counts, two of which

were against Multiplan. The FAC alleged the following causes of action: (1) wrongful

denial of benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA against Cigna, Sunrise, and the Plan;

(2) breach of contract against Cigna; (3) breach of implied-in-fact contract against Cigna;

(4) breach of contract against Multiplan; (5) violation of TPSC’s third party beneficiary

rights pursuant to the Cigna-Multiplan Agreement; and (6) unjust enrichment against

Multiplan and Cigna. Relevant here is TPSC’s fourth claim, a breach of contract claim

against Multiplan predicated on Cigna’s failure to pay 85% of the K.D.-related billed

charges under the TPSC-Multiplan Contract.

       The District Court granted Multiplan’s motion to dismiss the TAC and denied

TPSC’s motion to file the proposed FAC for Counts Three through Six because only the

Payor is liable under the Contract for payment for medical services and TPSC cannot

contractually recover from Multiplan for Cigna’s alleged underpayment. Accordingly,

only TPSC’s claims against Cigna and Sunrise for wrongful denial of benefits, and a

breach of contract claim against Cigna, remained. Later, the Court dismissed the claims

against Cigna and granted summary judgment against TPSC on its benefits

reimbursement claim.7

(2) ERISA claim for benefits against Cigna and Sunrise; (3) breach of contract against
Multiplan.
       7
         The District Court held that Cigna’s reimbursement determination for K.D. was
not arbitrary and capricious and, thus, that there was “no genuine dispute of fact that
[TPSC wa]s not entitled to any further reimbursement under the terms of the Plan.”
(App. at 5.)

                                             7
       TPSC timely appealed the District Court’s dismissal of the breach of contract

claim against Multiplan (Count III), as set forth in the TAC, and the denial of TPSC’s

motion for leave to file Count IV of the FAC, which again is the breach of contract claim

against Multiplan.

II.    DISCUSSION8

       We begin by noting what is not before us. No claims against Cigna or Sunrise

have been appealed, and the District Court dismissed or granted summary judgment on

all such claims. Therefore, the obligations of Cigna and Sunrise, if any, play no part in

our analysis. Nor is a third-party beneficiary claim before us; the Court dismissed

TPSC’s claim that it was a beneficiary of the Cigna-Multiplan Agreement, and that

decision was not appealed. TPSC does not assert a guarantor claim against Multiplan

here, and the contract explicitly refutes that possibility, as we will discuss.

       Instead, TPSC presses only that Multiplan promised, under the TPSC-Multiplan

Contract, that Payors (here, Cigna) would pay TPSC 85% of billed charges for covered

medical services, and that Cigna’s underpayment resulted in a “failure of consideration

       8
         The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
        “We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule
[of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6).” Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co., 965 F.3d 214, 219 (3d
Cir. 2020). Denial of leave to amend because of “futility is governed by the same
standard[.]” Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 291 (3d Cir. 2000) (brackets omitted).
When conducting our review, we “determine whether, under any reasonable reading of
the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292
F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002). All “well-pleaded allegations” must be accepted as true
and construed “in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs[.]” McTernan v. City of York,
577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009).
                                               8
for which TPSC has bargained and constitutes a breach of the Multiplan Contract.”

(Opening Br. at 15.) Under that theory, TPSC seeks compensatory damages from

Multiplan “equal [to] the delta between what Cigna paid to TPSC and 85% of TPSC’s

billed charges[,]” or $155,242.66. (Opening Br. at 15.)

       TPSC contends that the District Court wrongly interpreted its claim as seeking to

hold Multiplan liable as a “Payor” for medical services, rather than for breach of contract

to recover damages.9 (Opening Br. at 15.) Multiplan responds that the Contract does not

contain any provisions that guarantee Multiplan will reimburse providers for medical

services, nor any guarantees that Multiplan will “force payors to access the agreement

and reimburse TPSC, in any amount.” (Answering Br. at 3.) Thus, says Multiplan, there

was no breach of the TPSC-Multiplan Contract.

       We agree with Multiplan. Nowhere in the TPSC-Multiplan Contract is there a

guarantee of anything by Multiplan other than potential access to Payors within the

Multiplan Network.

       9
          Before the District Court, Multiplan opposed TPSC’s cross motion for leave to
file the proposed FAC on the same bases as its motion to dismiss the TAC. Accordingly,
the Court used the allegations in the proposed FAC for the purpose of resolving the
motion. We will do the same.
        Additionally, because the TPSC-Multiplan Contract was relied upon in TPSC’s
FAC, we will, as the District Court did, consider it in our analysis. U.S. Express Lines
Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Although a district court may not
consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied
upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into
one for summary judgment.”); see also Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Ass’n, 903
F.3d 100, 112 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding that if attached “exhibits contradict [the]
allegations in the complaint, the exhibit controls”).

                                             9
       Under New Jersey law,10 “[t]o establish a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff has

the burden to show that the parties entered into a valid contract, that the defendant failed

to perform his obligations under the contract and that the plaintiff sustained damages as a

result.” Murphy v. Implicito, 920 A.2d 678, 689 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007). In so

determining, “[w]e interpret a contract according to its plain language by reading the

document as a whole in a fair and common sense manner so as to match the reasonable

expectations of the parties.” Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc.,

653 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 965 A.2d

1165, 1168-69 (N.J. 2009)).

       As a reminder, Section 4.2 of the contract provides, in relevant part, “Payment for

Covered Services under this [Contract] is the sole responsibility of the Payor and shall be

the lesser of Provider’s usual billed charges or the reimbursement amount provided in

Exhibit A[.]” (App. at 59.) Exhibit A to the contract states that “Covered Services will

be reimbursed at 85% of usual billed charges, less applicable Copayments, Deductibles

and Coinsurance.” (App. at 65; see also App. at 53 (Contract Update) (“Reimbursement

fees. … [TPSC] will be reimbursed under [the Contract] for services provided to

members …, which is equal to eighty-five (85%) percent of your billed charges[.]”).)

The contract thus sets forth a discount rate (85%) at which a Payor, and only a Payor,

       10
          Section 8.11, “Governing Law[,]” states: “This Agreement shall be interpreted
and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the state in which Provider is
located[.]” (App. at 63.) TPSC is a New Jersey professional corporation with its
principal place of business in New Jersey, so we apply New Jersey law.

                                             10
such as Cigna, is required to reimburse “health care services provided pursuant to a

Plan.” (App. at 57.) Section 4.2 does not mention Multiplan, nor does it include a

guarantee that TPSC will always receive 85% of billed charges.

       Contrary to TPSC’s claims, Section 2.1, “Marketing and Promotion[,]” provides

Multiplan’s obligation under the TPSC-Multiplan Contract: Multiplan “shall use

reasonable efforts to market … and to solicit Network Access Agreements. [Multiplan]

may allow Payors to access Provider services under this Agreement for those Plans

included within the scope of this Agreement.” (App. at 58.) There is no allegation in the

TAC or the proposed FAC that Multiplan failed to do so. In fact, Multiplan did exactly

as it promised: it marketed TPSC and allowed Payors access to the Network for certain

Covered Services at a specified rate, and it did not require them to access the Network for

all such services. (Opening Br. at 24 (“Multiplan markets its network to Payors as

including TPSC as a provider … [and] enter[ed] into agreements with Payors like the one

that it has with Cigna.”).)

       Additionally, even if we construed TPSC’s claim as it wishes, no provision in its

contract with Multiplan guarantees that TPSC will recover 85% of the billed charges for

all provided medical services. To the contrary, Section 3.3, “Participation in [Multiplan]

Networks[,]” explicitly provides that, by participating, “Provider understands and

acknowledges that … depending on the applicable Plan, Covered Services may be

covered under the Eligible Person’s in-network or out-of-network benefit.” (App. at 59

(emphasis added).) In the end, Multiplan gives TPSC access to a network of providers

                                            11
who may, but only just may, pay the Multiplan rate. Nothing more was agreed upon in

that respect.11

       The outcome here may certainly seem unfair, and one might wonder whether

TPSC understood just how little backing they were going to get from Multiplan. But the

agreement is an arms-length commercial transaction between sophisticated parties, and

“contracting part[ies] ha[ve] the duty to learn and know the contents of a contract before

[they] sign[] and deliver[] it.” Morales v. Sun Constructors, Inc., 541 F.3d 218, 222 (3d

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also MZM Constr. Co. v. N.J. Bldg.

Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d 386, 403 (3d Cir. 2020) (“It is the general

rule that where a party affixes [her] signature to a written instrument, … a conclusive

presumption arises that [she] read, understood and assented to its terms and [she] will not

be heard to complain that [she] did not comprehend the effect of [her] act in signing.”

(quoting Peter W. Kero, Inc. v. Terminal Const. Corp., 78 A.2d 814, 817 (N.J. 1951)

(alterations in original))).

       Thus, we agree with the District Court that TPSC failed to plausibly state a

claim for breach of contract.

III.   CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing

Count III of the TAC and denying leave to file Count IV of the proposed FAC.

       11
          While TPSC could have perhaps pled an illusory contract claim, none was pled
at the District Court and therefore no such claim is before us.

                                            12