Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Arizona Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

August 2, 2019

Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
United Healthcare of Arizona Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District Judge

         The Court has reviewed and considered: (i) the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, dated July 12, 2019, and the Declaration of Mark Rapazzini of Heffler Claims Group in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (as well as the supplemental Declaration of Mark Rapazzini filed on July 31, 2019); (ii) the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, dated December 20, 2018; (iii) the application of Settlement Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and service awards dated April 24, 2019; (iv) the fact that there were no responses or objections to these submissions; and (v) the Declaration of Mailing of CAFA Notice, dated July 10, 2019, relating to compliance with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (“CAFA”).

         In addition, on August 1, 2019, the Court held a Final Settlement Hearing and is satisfied that notice to the Settlement Class, which is defined below in Paragraph 2 of this Final Order and Judgment (“Order”), was provided in accordance with the Court's Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, conditionally certifying the settlement class, setting form and content of notice to members of the settlement class, and scheduling final settlement hearing, entered on January 25, 2019 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). The Court also has taken into account the fact that no objections were submitted prior to the Final Settlement Hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order and the presentations and other proceedings at the Final Settlement Hearing, and has considered the Settlement in the context of all prior proceedings conducted in this litigation. Based on the submissions and proceedings referenced above, the Court makes the following findings:

A. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
B. Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not otherwise defined herein have the meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement.
C. Notice to Settlement Class Members was provided in accordance with the notice requirements specified by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order. Such notice constituted the best means of notice to Settlement Class Members that was practicable under the circumstances and was due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Final Settlement Hearing to all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement or the Final Settlement Hearing. Further, such notice was in full compliance with the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and CAFA.
D. The Court held a Final Settlement Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, and has been advised that there are no objections to the Settlement.
E. The Settlement is the product of good-faith, arm's-length negotiation between Settling Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants and their counsel.
F. In view of the monetary and non-monetary settlement consideration, the Court finds that the Settlement, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. The amount of formal and informal discovery and independent investigation by the attorneys, and the factual record compiled, sufficed to enable the Parties to make an informed decision as to the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement. In determining that the Settlement is in all respects fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class, the Court has considered all of the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
G. The Release and Injunctions provisions of this Order, which prohibit the assertion of claims against any Released Parties, as set forth below, are conditions of the Settlement and a significant component of the consideration afforded to Defendants in the Settlement Agreement, and the provisions are reasonable under the circumstances.

         On the basis of the foregoing findings and the submissions and proceedings referenced above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

         Certification Of Settlement Class And Approval Of Settlement

         1. The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 837) is GRANTED and the Settlement is hereby approved as fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class in light of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation, and the risks involved in establishing liability, damages, and in maintaining a class action through trial. The Court further finds that the requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. There were no objections made based upon due process, constitutionality, procedures, substance, and compliance with the law, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of notice and the fairness of the Settlement.

         2. The Court finds that, for the purposes of the Settlement only, each of the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court unconditionally certifies a class (the “Settlement Class”) composed of: (i) all Decompression Therapy service providers that provided Out-of-Network Decompression Therapy Services to a Plan Member, submitted a claim for reimbursement of those Decompression Therapy Services pursuant to an assignment of benefits received from that Plan Member, and received a Complete Claim Denial from any of the Released Parties during the period from March 7, 2002 through April 24, 2019; and (ii) all Plan Members who received Out-of-Network Decompression Therapy Services, submitted a claim for reimbursement of those ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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