Breast cancer patient awarded $9 million

[Lanya]

Health Net ordered to pay $9 million after canceling cancer patient's policy

Arbitration winner


Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times

Patsy Bates, a breast cancer patient whose medical coverage was canceled by her insurer, was awarded more than $9 million today in a case against Health Net Inc., one of the state's largest for-profit insurers.
The punitive damage award is the first of its kind and has prompted the giant medical insurer to scrap practices that have recently come under fire.
By Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 23, 2008
One of California's largest for-profit insurers stopped a controversial practice of canceling sick policyholders Friday after a judge ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient it dropped in the middle of chemotherapy.

The ruling by a private arbitration judge was the first of its kind and the most powerful rebuke to the state's major insurers whose cancellation practices are under fire from the courts, state regulators and elected officials.

Bates Arbitration award
PDF
Bates Arbitration award
(Acrobat file)

Related Stories
-    Previous insurance rescission coverage
 
Calling Woodland Hills-based Health Net's actions "egregious," Judge Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, ruled that the company broke state laws and acted in bad faith.

"Health Net was primarily concerned with and considered its own financial interests and gave little, if any, consideration and concern for the interests of the insured," Cianchetti wrote in a 21-page ruling.

Patsy Bates, a 52-year-old grandmother, was at work at the Gardena hair salon she owns when her lawyer William Shernoff called with the news. Bates said she screamed and thanked the lawyer.

Then, "I thanked God," she said. "I praised the Lord."

Bates called the arbitration judge "an angel . . . a real stand-up kind of judge."

When Health Net dropped her in January 2004, Bates was stuck with more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to stop chemotherapy for several months until she found a charity to pay for it.

Health Net Chief Executive Jay Gellert ordered an immediate halt to cancellations and told The Times that the company would be changing its coverage applications and retraining its sales force.

"I felt bad about what happened to her," he said. "I feel bad about the whole situation."

Gellert said he would move quickly to "give people the confidence that they can count on their policy." Specifically, he pledged to stop all cancellations until an external review process could be established to approve all cancellations.

Other insurers were considering changing their own practices. A spokeswoman for WellPoint Inc., which operates Blue Cross of California, the state's largest for-profit insurer, said the company was in favor of such an idea. Blue Shield of California declined to comment.

Until Friday, the companies had uniformly defended cancellations, saying they were necessary to hold down costs by weeding out people who may have failed to disclose pre-existing conditions on applications for coverage. They say cancellations happen infrequently.

The judge's strong denunciation of the way Health Net carried out Bates' cancellation and big money award stunned and pleased regulators and patient advocates.

State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner applauded the judge, saying "health insurers simply cannot hold out the promise of insurance for their consumers and then snatch it away just when people need it most. That is illegal, immoral and will not be tolerated."

Earlier, Health Net had defended its actions, saying it never would have issued Bates a policy in the first place if she had disclosed her true weight and a preexisting heart condition on her application.

Bates said a broker filled out the application while she was styling a client's hair on a busy day in her shop. She said she answered his questions as best she could.

Bates said she already had insurance and wasn't in the market until the broker came by and told her that he thought he could get her a lower monthly premium if she switched to Health Net.

At the arbitration hearing, internal company documents were disclosed showing that Health Net had paid employee bonuses for meeting a cancellation quota and for the amount of money saved.

"It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive," the judge wrote.
[.........]
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,6275221.story?ctrack=3&cset=true

[sirs]

And quite ironically, one can not sue the Federal Government when medicare denies coverage for services rendered.  Yet, some would actually advocate such a system.  One has to really wonder why     

[Amianthus]

Health Net ordered to pay $9 million after canceling cancer patient's policy

Wow. XO seems to have told us just this morning that you can't successfully sue a big corporation...

[Stray Pooch]

I say we should just vote Health Net out of office.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say you could not sue a huge corporation, I said that it was damn near impossible for the average person to do this. In the first place, most people cannot afford to hire the legal help it would take to win against a corporation, and would have to find a lawyer willing to take such a case on a contingency basis.

This is a massive obstacle. The GOP would prefer to make it a much more massive one, actually.

Right now, Juniorbush is trying to get Congress to make it retroactively impossible for anyone whose privacy was unjustly violated by the warrantless telephone taps of his Justice Dept. to sue the various  phone companies that illegally allowed it in the first place.

Lawsuits are very rare way of getting justice. Even when you win, the custom is to make you sign a statement promising never to divulge the amount of the settlement and other particulars. So 99% fo the time, the customer gets screwed. 1% of the time he gets the opportunity to sue, and less than half of the time he wins. And when he does, the amount cannot be divulged.

If that is justice for you, goody for you. But I don;t see this as even "Justice Light".

 

[Amianthus]

I did not say you could not sue a huge corporation, I said that it was damn near impossible for the average person to do this.

And how do you sue the government?

You think it's hard to sue a company, try suing the government. Basically, the government has to give you permission to sue them, before you can even bring the case to court...

And even if you don't sue the company, in most cases you can switch service to another company pretty easily. Except, of course, for those government sanctioned monopolies (which you seem to always support...)

[Xavier_Onassis]

And even if you don't sue the company, in most cases you can switch service to another company pretty easily. Except, of course, for those government sanctioned monopolies (which you seem to always support...)

What? you mean like ATT or CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN?
I have never said that I support these.

I suggest that it is easier for an individual to battle the government than it is to battle a corporation. In neither case is is easy, or as easy as it should be. WE really need Ombudsmen to make sure we are treated fairly and squarely by either corporations or governments.

[Amianthus]

I suggest that it is easier for an individual to battle the government than it is to battle a corporation.

Having done both, I can more than "suggest" that it's easier to battle the corporation, who will give in when it starts costing them money. The government, on the other hand, will never give in because it's not their money that they're spending.

[sirs]

I suggest that it is easier for an individual to battle the government than it is to battle a corporation.

Having done both, I can more than "suggest" that it's easier to battle the corporation, who will give in when it starts costing them money. The government, on the other hand, will never give in because it's not their money that they're spending.[/color]

BINGO   

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is a theory.

I would not relish suing either. As I said, we need an ombudsman system to make it easier for the citizen to do battle against either of these.

[sirs]

Interesting non-response from the originator of the thread.  hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, though I think we can safely assume why