Case Review Corner: Healthcare Providers Beware – Exhausting ERISA Remedies is Crucial
ERISA can be exhausting.
Whatever brought you here, I hope we can make a difference.
Welcome back to "Case Review Corner" at Dorian Law PC. In this installment, we examine the case of Murphy Medical Associates, LLC, et al. v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, Case No. 24-1880-cv, a summary order issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on March 11, 2025. This case serves as an important reminder for healthcare providers seeking reimbursement from ERISA-governed benefit plans about the necessity of exhausting all administrative remedies before heading to court.
The Case of Murphy Medical Associates vs. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund
The plaintiffs, Murphy Medical Associates, LLC, along with Diagnostic and Medical Specialists of Greenwich, LLC, and Steven A.R. Murphy, M.D. (collectively, "Murphy Practice"), sued the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund (the "Fund") to recover denied reimbursements for COVID-19 tests and related services they administered to members of the Fund.
The Fund moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Murphy Practice had failed to exhaust the Fund's mandatory administrative appeal process. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, finding that the Murphy Practice did not adequately show they had gone through the Fund's appeals process or that doing so would have been futile. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal.
The Importance of Exhausting Administrative Remedies Under ERISA
The court emphasized the "firmly established federal policy favoring exhaustion of administrative remedies in ERISA cases," citing the Second Circuit's decision in Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588, 594 (2d Cir. 1993). This means that before an individual or entity can sue an ERISA plan in federal court, they generally must complete all the administrative appeals provided for in the plan documents.
The Futility Exception – A High Bar
The Murphy Practice argued that pursuing the Fund's administrative remedies would have been futile. However, the court found that they failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support this claim. The court noted that the Fund's Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) clearly outlined the administrative review and appeal process for plan members. While the Murphy Practice claimed they didn't receive this information directly, the court pointed out that the Fund's members did receive this information and could have authorized the Murphy Practice to appeal on their behalf. Since the Murphy Practice didn't allege they even requested this information from their patients, their futility argument fell short.
Key Takeaway for Healthcare Providers:
This case underscores a critical point for healthcare providers who provide services to individuals covered by ERISA plans: even if you believe a denial of reimbursement is incorrect, you generally cannot bypass the plan's internal appeals process and directly sue in federal court. You must either go through the appeals process yourself (if authorized by the patient) or demonstrate a clear and positive showing that doing so would be futile.
For Legal Professionals: Navigating the Exhaustion Requirement for Provider Claims Under ERISA
The Second Circuit's summary order in Murphy Medical Associates reinforces the well-established ERISA principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, even for healthcare providers seeking reimbursement on behalf of plan members. The court explicitly cites Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588, 594 (2d Cir. 1993), highlighting the strong federal policy favoring administrative exhaustion.
The decision also clarifies the pleading requirements for asserting the futility exception to the exhaustion doctrine. Citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the court emphasizes that conclusory allegations of futility, without supporting factual detail, will not suffice. The court distinguishes the futility exception, which typically requires a showing of routine and uniform denials making the appeal process a waste of time (citing Cottillion v. United Ref. Co., 781 F.3d 47, 55 (3d Cir. 2015)), from situations where there is a lack of meaningful access to the review procedures (citing Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 959 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1992)).
The Lesson: This case serves as a reminder for legal professionals representing healthcare providers that they must diligently ensure their clients have exhausted all available administrative remedies within the ERISA plan before filing suit. Furthermore, when arguing for a futility exception, practitioners must plead specific, non-conclusory facts demonstrating why pursuing those remedies would have been clearly useless. The court's emphasis on the provider's ability to seek authorization from plan members to pursue appeals on their behalf is a crucial point for counsel to advise their provider clients on.
Conclusion:
The Murphy Medical Associates case serves as a critical reminder to healthcare providers that when seeking reimbursement from ERISA-governed plans like the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, diligently following the plan's administrative appeal process is not just a procedural formality—it's a prerequisite for accessing the federal courts. Understanding and adhering to these exhaustion requirements, or securing proper authorization from patients to do so, is essential to avoid the costly and time-consuming outcome faced by the Murphy Practice in this case.
Are you a healthcare provider facing denied reimbursements from an ERISA-governed health plan? Understanding the appeals process is crucial. Contact Dorian Law PC today for a consultation to discuss your rights and options for navigating ERISA benefit claim disputes.
Disclaimer: The information provided here is for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified lawyer for advice regarding your specific situation.