Feldman's Medical Center Pharmacy v. Carefirst, Incorporated, No. 12-2297 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2297 FELDMAN'S MEDICAL CENTER PHARMACY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAREFIRST, INCORPORATED, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-00254-SKG) Submitted: September 6, 2013 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 9, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Paduano, PADUANO & WEINTRAUB, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. Anthony F. Shelley, MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Feldman s Medical Center Pharmacy, Inc. appeals the district court s denial of its motion for attorney s fees. We affirm. In June CareFirst, 2009, Inc. in Feldman s the Circuit filed a Court complaint for against Baltimore County, Maryland, seeking reimbursement for medication it had dispensed to CareFirst s insureds. CareFirst removed the case to the district court, which later denied Feldman s motion for remand on the ground preempted by that at least one ERISA. In August of 2010, Feldman s CareFirst claims was advised the district court that it was willing to voluntarily pay Feldman s claims based upon an advisory opinion from the Maryland Board of Pharmacy that shed light on the underlying dispute. Thereafter, CareFirst paid Feldman s claims for reimbursement in their entirety, plus $23,017.00 in interest. After CareFirst paid, Feldman s asserted that CareFirst had improperly calculated the amount of interest owed, which Feldman s claimed was $886,483.93 (in addition to the amount already paid by CareFirst), and moved for summary judgment on that issue. The district court ultimately granted Feldman s an additional $11,983.00 in interest. Feldman s thereafter moved for attorney s fees, which the district court denied. Feldman's 2 Med. Ctr. Pharm., Inc. v. CareFirst, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Md. 2012). In an ERISA action, a district court has discretion under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) to award costs and reasonable attorney s fees to either party, so long as the party has (1) achieved some degree of success on the merits, and (2) is entitled to an award under the five factors we set forth in Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1029 (4th Cir. 1993). Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 634 35 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010)). We review the district court s denial of Feldman s motion for abuse of discretion. Id. at 634. The district court found Feldman s had not achieved some success on the merits because (1) its lawsuit was not the catalyst causing CareFirst to pay the claims at issue, and (2) the award of prejudgment interest in favor of Feldman s was trivial since the court rejected Feldman s central theory for calculating the interest owed and ultimately awarded a much lower amount than Feldman s sought. Feldman's Med. Ctr. Pharm., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d at 897 907. Further, the court held that even if Feldman s had achieved some success on the merits, it was still not entitled to an award of fees under the Quesinberry factors. Feldman s noted a timely appeal. On appeal, Feldman s contests both of these rulings. 3 Having reviewed the parties submissions, the district court s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court s order. Feldman's Med. Ctr. Pharm., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 883. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.