SOUTH COAST SPECIALTY SURGERY CENTER, INC. V. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, No. 22-55717 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an ERISA action brought by South Coast Specialty Surgery Center, Inc. against Blue Cross of California, d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross.
South Coast, a healthcare provider, sought reimbursement from Blue Cross for the costs of medical services provided to its patients. South Coast argued that although it was not a plan participant or a beneficiary under ERISA, it had the right to enforce ERISA's protections directly because its patients had assigned it the right to sue for the non-payment of plan benefits via an "Assignment of Benefits" form. The district court disagreed and dismissed South Coast's suit, concluding that the form only conveyed the right to receive direct payment from Anthem, and not the right to sue for non-payment of plan benefits.
The Ninth Circuit held that a healthcare provider can enforce ERISA's protections if it has received a valid assignment of rights. The court determined that South Coast's patients had effectuated a valid assignment through the "Assignment of Benefits" form. Therefore, South Coast had the right to seek payment of benefits and to sue for non-payment. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Court Description: ERISA The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an ERISA action brought by South Coast Specialty Surgery Center, Inc., and remanded.
South Coast, a healthcare provider, sought reimbursement from Blue Cross of California, d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross, an insurer and claims administrator, for the costs of medical services provided to South Coast’s patients. South Coast, neither a plan participant nor a beneficiary, could not bring a direct enforcement action under ERISA, but it argued that it could enforce ERISA’s protections directly because its patients assigned it the right to sue for the non-payment of plan benefits via an “Assignment of Benefits” form.
The panel held that, under longstanding precedent, a healthcare provider has derivative authority to enforce ERISA’s protections if it has received a valid assignment of rights. Construing South Coast’s “Assignment of Benefits” form, the panel held that South Coast’s patients effectuated a valid assignment. Accordingly, South Coast had the right to seek payment of benefits and to sue for non-payment. SOUTH COAST SPECIALTY SURGERY CTR. V. BLUE CROSS OF CAL. 3
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.