No. 21-1287

In Re W. A. Griffin

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2022-03-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: anti-alienation anti-assignment assignment-of-benefits erisa erisa-preemption fiduciary-duty georgia-law health-benefits healthcare-provider mandamus statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-12
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether the anti-assignment provision in the health benefit plan apply to W. A. Griffin, MD ("Dr. Griffin"), a Georgia provider, who obtained a written assignment of benefit from her patient in accordance with Georgia State mandatory assignment of benefit law (Georgia § 33-24-54). Anti-assignment and anti-alienation provisions contained in employer sponsored group health benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Investment Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") are usually not applicable to an assignee who is the provider of the services which the plans are maintained to furnish. Dr. Griffin provided health services to Patient K.R., an individual covered by the Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, employer-sponsored group health benefit plan ("Savannah River Nuclear Plan"), and Patient K. R. executed a written assignment benefit to Dr. Griffin that states this assignment is a "direct legal assignment of [Patient K.R/s] rights and benefits under" the Plan. The District Court and the Eleventh Circuit have repeatedly stated that the language "rights and benefits" does not cover rights to statutory penalties and/or breaches of fiduciary duty claims and that Dr. Griffin does not have a valid assignment of benefit, because the state assignment law is pre-empted by ERISA.

Even though Dr. Griffin has shown the District Court this Court's instructive authority that clearly illustrates that the Georgia assignment of benefit statue is not pre-empted by ERISA in Rutledge, it refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Griffin has a valid assignment (or any lights) that pertain to an assignment of benefit obtained in accordance with Georgia law. Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n, No. 18:540, 2020 WL 7250098 (S. Ct. 10. Dec. 2020). The question is whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the District Court to halt the unlawful blockade of Dr. Griffin's payment and non-payment related ERISA rights, clearly directs every court to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court's order.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the anti-assignment provision in the health benefit plan apply to W. A. Griffin, MD (\'Dr. Griffin\'), a Georgia provider; who obtained a written assignment of benefit from her patient in accordance with Georgia State mandatory assignment of benefit law (Georgia § 33-24-54)

Docket Entries

2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-19
Waiver of right of respondent Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina to respond filed.
2022-04-18
Waiver of right of respondents Health and Welfare Committee of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Welfare Benefits Plan to respond filed.
2022-04-15
Waiver of right of respondent Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc. to respond filed.
2022-03-17
Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due April 22, 2022)

Attorneys

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina
Mary Elizabeth BrunetteFox Rothschild LLP, Respondent
Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia, Inc.
Lindsey B. MannTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Respondent
Griffin, In Re W. A.
W. A. Griffin — Petitioner
Health and Welfare Committee of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Welfare Benefits Plan
David R KresserFisher & Phillips, LLP, Respondent