- Docket No.
- District Court
- Texas Eastern
- Invalidate all or part of a federal regulation
- Receive equitable disgorgement of administrative fees
Why this Matters:
The plaintiffs argue that regulations to impose guardrails and set administrative fees with respect to the No Surprises Act’s arbitration process—a process used to resolve payment disputes for surprise out-of-network bills between payers and out-of-network health care providers—are invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. If federal agencies cannot set reasonable guidelines and devise a sustainable funding model to support arbitrators, certain providers could be more likely to try to abuse this process to obtain higher payments, making the arbitration process more likely to become inflationary, and leading to higher health care costs and premiums.
The inability to impose reasonable guardrails and administrative fees for the No Surprises Act’s arbitration process could lead to abuses of the process and higher health care costs and premiums.
10 Major Filings
- Defendants Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Apr 7, 2023)
- RESPONSE in Opposition re Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Mar 27, 2023)
- Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion (Mar 15, 2023)
- Amicus Brief of American College of Emergency Physicians et al. (Feb 21, 2023)
- Amicus Brief of Emergency Department Practice Management Association (Feb 21, 2023)
- Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb 13, 2023)
- Order on Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule (Feb 13, 2023)
- Joint Motion to Set Expedited SJ Briefing (Feb 10, 2023)
- Complaint (Jan 30, 2023)
- Notice of Related Cases (Jan 30, 2023)