Brannigan v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MICHAEL BRANNIGAN, attorney-in-fact for Patient KP; and WORLDWIDE AIRCARFT SERVICES d/b/a Jet ICU, Plaintiffs, Case No: 8:21-cv-2353-KKM-SPF ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, Defendant.

ORDER Defendant Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ single Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim against it. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Doc. 20.) The motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted. (Id.) The fourteen-day deadline for Plaintiffs to object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation has passed with no objection from Plaintiffs, so the Court treats the Recommendation as unopposed. Nevertheless, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (Steele, After a careful and complete review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and grants Anthem’s motion to dismiss for two reasons. First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to establish that Jet ICU has statutory standing to bring an ERISA claim given the operative plan’s anti-assignment provisions and the failure to allege written permission for an assignment of benefits to Jet ICU. See Surgery Ctr. of Viera, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., No. 6:19- cv-630, 2019 WL 5393817, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2019) (Berger, J.). Second, the Court also agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Complaint fails to identify the specific provisions of the operative plan under which Plaintiffs seek recovery. See Sanctuary Surgical Ctr., Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., No. 10-cv-81589, 2013 WL 149356, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2013) (Hurley, J.).

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and made a part of this order for all purposes. (Doc. 33.)

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. 19.)

3. By May 20, 2022, Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 12, 2022.

patron Mizelle United States District Judge