Specialtycare Inc., Remote Neuromonitoring Physicians, PC, and Sentient...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SPECIALTYCARE INC., REMOTE ) NEUROMONITORING PHYSICIANS, PC, ) and SENTIENT PHYSICIANS, PC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. No. 25-198 (MN) v. ) ) MERITAIN HEALTH, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington, this 17th day of March 2026; WHEREAS, on February 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Hatcher issued a 14-page Report and Recommendation (D.I. 39) (“the Report”) recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 19) be granted and Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss (D.I. 25) be denied as moot; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the Report (D.I. 40) and Defendant responded (D.I. 41); WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the objections (D.I. 40) and the response thereto (D.I. 41), and considered de novo the objected-to portions of the Report, the amended complaint (D.I. 15), the underlying motions and supporting documentation as well as the responses and replies thereto (D.I. 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31); and also afforded reasoned consideration to any unobjected-to portions of the Report (EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017)); and WHEREAS, having done so, the Court agrees with the careful and thorough reasoning of Report, in particular the determinations (1) to follow the majority in finding the No Surprises Act (“NSA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg-111, does not create a private right of action for the reasons articulated in the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Guardian Flight Guardian Flight, L.L.C. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 140 F.4th 271, 277 (Sth Cir. 2025), and (2) that Plaintiffs may not circumvent Congress’ omission of a private right of action in the NSA by seeking to enforce a federal right under a state law theory.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 39) is ADOPTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 19) is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (D.I. 15) is dismissed.

Maal Noracko Thte Honorable Maryellen Noreika United States District Judge