- Filing. Published in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on June 26, 2020 (Case no. 2:18-cv-00807-RJS-JCB).
- Background. Plaintiff received care at various residential treatment facilities and coverage for her care was denied. Defendants Intermountain and SelectHealth object to Magistrate Judge’s Order on Plaintiff’s discovery motion. After challenging the denial, and SelectHealth upholding each denial decision, Plaintiff filed four causes of action in her Second Amended Compliant. Plaintiff claims:
- She “is entitled to damages based on Defendants’ wrongful denial of her claims, including violation of the express terms of the Plan and the Parity”
- She “is entitled to an injunction against SelectHealth to prevent it from continuing to violate ERISA’s provisions.”
- She “is entitled to other equitable relief on account of Defendants’ alleged ERISA violations.”
- “Intermountain Healthcare is liable for failing to produce Plan documents under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c).”
Defendants object to the discovery motion to get more details about the potential Parity Act violation.
- Holding. Judge Robert J. Shelby overruled Defendant’s objection and affirmed the discovery order.
- Analysis. The Court noted that “Discovery is a nondispositive matter. Accordingly, the court ‘must defer to the magistrate judge’s ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” In this case, the judge highlighted that the nature of Parity Act claims generally require further discovery to evaluate the potential disparity.