Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL v. ALL SHORE

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania


April 7, 2004.

HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL Plaintiff,
v.
ALL SHORE, INC.; ALL SHORE, INC. HEALTH PLAN Defendants, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. PLAN VISTA SOLUTIONS, formerly NPPN Third Party Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD GREEN, Senior District Judge

ORDER

Presently pending are Third Party Defendant, Plan Vista Solution's ("Plan Vista") Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, All Shore, Inc.'s ("All Shore") Answer to the Motion and Alternative Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint, and the Plaintiff, Hahnemann University Hospital's ("Hahnemann") Response to All Shore's Motion to Dismiss. Plan Vista claims that All Shore (1) did not seek leave of court to file the Third Party Complaint which was filed more than 10 days after they served their Answer, (2) did not make a claim for contribution or indemnification, and (3) did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted; therefore, the Third Party Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

The suit arose when Hahnemann filed a complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132(a)(1)(B) against All Shore seeking payment for medical services rendered to Ms. Hawco, a participant of the All Shore Plan. Hahnemann claims that it was informed that the benefits for Ms. Hawco. would be paid at 90%. When Hahnemann submitted claims for $255,918.90 for the care of Ms. Hawco, they were only paid $102,867.56. All Shore filed their Answer on September 30, 2003. On November 5, 2003, All Shore filed the Third Party Complaint against Plan Vista alleging All Shore relied on information and instruction from Plan Vista as their Third Party Administrator to adjust Ms. Hawco's Hahnemann invoices. All Shore claims that Plan Vista, known at the time as NPPN, represented that it had an insurance agreement with Hahnemann that required All Shore to reduce its bill. The Third Party Complaint alleges NPPN has an obligation to the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to both actual damages and potential penalties if imposed by this court for violations of the ERISA statute.

  Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) clearly states that a party must obtain leave, All Shore neither sought leave nor offered an explanation as to why leave was not sought. Plan Vista does not allege that they were prejudiced by the thirty (30) day delay; therefore, I will exercise my discretion and not dismiss the Complaint on the ground that leave to file was not obtained. As for the sufficiency of the Third Party Complaint, All Shore claims its liability depends upon the existence of a contract between Plan Vista and Hahnemann. Upon review of the Complaint and accepting the allegations as true, I conclude that All Shore's allegations are sufficiently pled to state a claim. As Plan Vista's Motion to Dismiss will be denied, it is not necessary to discuss All Shore's Alternative Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and the response thereto. That Motion will be dismissed as moot. AND NOW, this ___ day of April, 2004, upon consideration of Third Party Defendant, Plan Vista's Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint, the Third Party Plaintiff, All Shore's Answer to the Motion and Alternative Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint, and the Plaintiff, Hahnemann's Response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plan Vista's Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that All Shore's Alternative Motion is DISMISSED as MOOT.

20040407

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.