ARTICLE
4 September 2015

Texas Hospital Strikes Back At Aetna

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
On February 23, 2015, Aetna filed suit in Texas federal court against Robert A. Behar, M.D. and North Cypress Medical Center (North Cypress).
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On February 23, 2015, Aetna filed suit in Texas federal court against Robert A. Behar, M.D. and North Cypress Medical Center (North Cypress), alleging that Dr. Behar, the CEO of North Cypress, offered impermissible ownership stakes in the 139-bed community hospital in exchange for patient referrals and designed an out-of-network business strategy that gave rise to excessive fees charged to Aetna. Now North Cypress has struck back.

On August 11, 2015, North Cypress answered Aetna's complaint denying the allegations, and in addition, filed an original counter-complaint against Aetna and its officers, Mark T. Bertolini, Jeff D. Emerson, Ed Neugebauer, and Clarence Carlton King, for what North Cypress described as "instigating unlawful and illegal decade-long schemes and 'Major Initiatives' against physician-owned, out-of-network facility providers such as North Cypress..."

North Cypress contends Aetna's schemes were perpetrated in order to "'bring down,' 'destroy' and bankrupt those entities" so that Aetna could realize greater revenues. Aetna's alleged schemes purportedly involved Aetna making contingency fees of "25% to 50% of the 'Savings' that Aetna artificially creates in the adjudication of out-of-network claims..." North Cypress claims Aetna's actions come at the expense of employer plan sponsors of self-funded plans and out-of-network providers. In carrying out its schemes, which are alleged to violate both state and federal law, North Cypress contends Aetna collected billions of dollars of net revenue per annum.

In striking back at Aetna, North Cypress asserted a host of claims, including violations of RICO, fraud, malicious tort of economic harm, tortious interference with patient agreements, statutory claims for ERISA breach of fiduciary duties, prohibited transactions between plan and parties-in-interest, statutory claims for co-fiduciary liability under ERISA, and statutory claims for violation of section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act. North Cypress did not specify the amount of damages it seeks to recover by way of its original counter-complaint, but did note that the counter-defendants earned a "good portion" of their approximately $500 billion in net revenues by conspiring against and underpaying or not paying North Cypress and other out-of-network hospitals. North Cypress is seeking, among other things, actual, consequential, compensatory, treble, exemplary, and punitive damages. North Cypress also seeks to have the counter-defendants removed as fiduciaries.

In originally bringing the lawsuit, Aetna had alleged that North Cypress implemented an impermissible out-of-network strategy that generally comprised four elements: (1) illegal kickbacks to physicians disguised as ownership interests in the hospital, (2) inappropriate billing practices including an out-of-network emergency room strategy, (3) waiver of Aetna members' financial responsibility, and (4) grossly excessive fees. Aetna contended that the illegal strategy caused it to overpay North Cypress as much as $120 million since January 1, 2009, and that North Cypress realized gross revenues that dwarf those of other nearby hospitals with greater inpatient bed capacity and higher patient utilization. Aetna is now faced with defending its own out-of-network practices following North Cypress' claims.

The case is Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Robert A. Behar, M.D., et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-491, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More