JOHN ZIPPERER, JR. V. PREMERA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, No. 18-35266 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN D. ZIPPERER, Jr., M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-35266 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00208-JWS v. MEMORANDUM* PREMERA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALASKA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. John D. Zipperer, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging a violation of the Alaska Prompt Payment Statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1994). We may affirm on any * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Zipperer’s Alaska Prompt Payment Statute claim because Zipperer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant failed to comply with the statute’s requirements given that defendants responded within 30 days. See Alaska Stat. § 21.36.495 (requiring health care insurer to either pay or deny a clean claim within 30 days of receiving it). Denial of Zipperer’s request for declaratory relief was proper because Zipperer did not prevail on his claim under the Alaska Prompt Payment Statute. See Hoeck v. City of Portland, 57 F.3d 781, 787 (9th Cir. 1995). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Zipperer’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35266

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.