Lawsuit: Like a “boa constrictor,” UnitedHealthcare squeezed anesthesia group out of competition – MedCity News

A group of anesthesia physicians is accusing insurance giant UnitedHealthcare of taking improper actions to force it out of network and jeopardize its relationships with providers.

In lawsuits filed in Texas and Colorado, U.S. Anesthesia Partners claims that UnitedHealthcare ended its long-standing relationships with its groups in those states, pushing them out of network to boost its profits.

Not only that, but the Dallas-based group is also accusing the payer of interfering with, undermining and eliminating its existing business and contractual relationships with healthcare facilities, individual surgeons and patients in Texas and Colorado.

In both lawsuits, the anesthesia group describes the insurer as a “boa constrictor,” squeezing the group from all sides.

But Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealthcare insists that it is the entity being pressurized.

U.S. Anesthesia Partners is using the lawsuits to force the payer “into agreeing to its rate demands and to distract from the real reason that it no longer participates in our network,” said Matt Wiggin, a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson, in an email.

“The reality is that many private equity-backed physician staffing companies like USAP expect to be paid double or even triple the median rate we pay other physicians providing the same services,” Wiggin said. “While these egregiously high rates help meet the profit expectations of their private equity owners, they also drive up the cost of care and make healthcare less affordable for people across the country.”

Being pushed out of its network is not the only issue with UnitedHealthcare that U.S. Anesthesia Partners details in its lawsuits.

The payer allegedly used multiple unlawful tactics and pressure campaigns to interfere with U.S. Anesthesia Partners’ relationships with providers and patients.

The Texas lawsuit claims that these tactics include bribing in-network surgeons with new contracts that provide significant financial incentives in exchange for their commitment to steer patients away from the anesthesia group; and imposing penalties on hospitals and other healthcare facilities that have contractual agreements with the group to force the facilities to stop using their services.

The Colorado lawsuit includes the above accusations and adds one more: the insurer provided misleading and inaccurate information about the anesthesia group to patients and other stakeholders.

Further, UnitedHealthcare intentionally pressured surgeons to refer cases away from U.S. Anesthesia Partners and toward other anesthesia providers that they selected, the lawsuits allege.

UnitedHealthcare is the largest healthcare insurance company in the U.S., and its parent company, UnitedHealth Group, also owns Optum, which operates the largest physician practice organization in the country with approximately 53,000 employed and affiliated physicians nationwide, according to the Texas lawsuit.

“In this way, United and its affiliates have extended their tentacles into virtually every aspect of healthcare, allowing United to squeeze, choke, and crush any market participant that stands in the way of [its] increased profits,” the Texas lawsuit states.

U.S. Anesthesia Partners is demanding a jury trial in both lawsuits as well as asking to be awarded damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the suits, and pre-and post-judgment interest.

Photo: Bet_Noire, Getty Images

Morning Docket: 04.06.21

* A new lawsuit alleges that a radio personality’s “rabid” fans forced a Florida man to leave the Sunshine State. Maybe the plaintiff was just a “snow bird”… [Tampa Bay Times]

* The highest-paid lawyers at Viacom/CBS were paid $12.7 million last year. [Bloomberg Law]

* The Supreme Court handed Google a win over Oracle in a longstanding copyright dispute. Maybe the justices just hate using Bing… [CNN]

* Harvey Weinstein has filed an appeal of his criminal conviction. [Fox News]

* A group of farmers recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against a number of agricultural companies. [AP]

* A Florida lawyer is getting recognition for helping professional wrestlers trademark parts of their personas. Guess he smells what the Rock is cooking… money. [Tampa Bay Times]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Highs And Lows In Bonus Reporting — See Also

No, You Can’t Say That In Court

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

How many states have banned the gay/trans “panic” defense in court?

Hint: Last week, Governor Ralph Northam signed a law last week banning the defense in Virginia, becoming the first southern state (but not the first state) to do so. The bill’s author, Delegate Danica Roem, said of the law, “What we were showing was, sometimes things are so egregious that when we have this universal acknowledgement that this shouldn’t be happening, we codify that. And so that’s what we did with this bill.”

See the answer on the next page.

Former CFO Of Badly-Run Company To Become CEO Of Badly-Run Company Hunter

When most hedge funds pack things up and move to Miami, the Sunshine State becomes merely an option for its employees, who generally remain free to continue working from offices in Manhattan or Greenwich or their homes. Not so Icahn Enterprises: Those unwilling the move to America’s worst state with Uncle Carl were free to stay in New York and go on the dole.

On Free Speech, The Biden Administration Already Disappoints

Fifty-two years ago, the Supreme Court stated it could “hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This might sound all well and good but as everyone who has gone to high school knows, students are regularly punished for their speech. That’s because current law allows students to be disciplined for “disruptive” speech at school or at an off-campus school event. But a clear distinction has also been made in the law between on- and off-campus speech, with off-campus speech being considered protected by the First Amendment. However, a case this term, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, threatens to remove this legal distinction and allow school officials to punish student speech that occurs entirely off campus.

Here are the facts of the Mahanoy case: A 14-year-old high school freshman at a public high school failed to make the varsity cheerleading team. Out of anger, the student posted a picture on Snapchat (on her own phone while at a local convenience store off school grounds), with her middle fingers raised, and captioned “Fuck School fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” When the coaches of the cheerleading team became aware of the picture, they kicked the student off the junior varsity team. The reason given for the removal was that the student’s Snapchat picture had violated agreed-upon team rules prohibiting students from, among other things, using “foul language and inappropriate gestures.” In response to the removal, the parents of the student sued the school arguing the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech prevented school officials from punishing speech that occurred off campus. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the student and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit also sided with the student after an appeal by the school.

In an amicus brief, the Biden administration has weighed in on the case after the Supreme Court granted cert. While taking no position on whether the student’s speech should be regulated, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued the Third Circuit “incorrectly held that off-campus student speech is categorically immune from discipline by public-school officials.” In other words, the DOJ has taken the position that the distinction between off-campus and on-campus speech should be abolished.

The DOJ’s position is disturbing and dangerous. As the American Civil Liberties Union (who represents the student in Mahanoy) has pointed out, giving government officials the power to police student speech outside of school will be catastrophic to free speech rights:

“Students won’t be able to discuss their views on racism, national policy, or religion even outside of school. And, as with most government authority, it’s not hard to imagine how that power will be applied in discriminatory ways. In fact, we’ve already seen schools misuse their power in troubling ways to punish young Black people for what they say outside of school, including for posting a photo of a memorial commemorating a girl’s deceased father, a photo of a boy “holding too much money,” rap music videos, and posts calling out racist slurs used by their white classmates.

Because we live in a world where many folks like nothing better than portraying “kids these days” as wild and out of control (despite the evidence), I expect many might read the facts of the Mahanoy case and think the student got what she deserved. But even if you are one of these folks it should not be disputed that punishment for off-campus speech is better left in the hands of parents or guardians, not government officials. Unfortunately, the DOJ does dispute it. And the case is now in the hands of a superconservative majority Supreme Court that has already demonstrated a willingness to drastically restructure First Amendment doctrine not based on the law, but out of personal preference. At this rate, the high school student could end up being one of the least objectionable actors in this entire case.


Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Announcing The Second Annual Virtual Bar Exam Summit

Taking the bar exam sucks under the best circumstances. Preparing for the bar exam in the times of COVID-19 adds one more layer of stress to the equation. Now, in addition to all the regular pressures of the bar exam, you also have to deal with online testing, limited seating, and other policy and administrative changes. It is stressful and overwhelming to say the least.

The Virtual Bar Exam Summit is designed to help you navigate these challenging bar prep times. Last summer, almost 600 people attended the Bar Exam Summit to help jumpstart their bar exam preparation. This year, the Summit is back and the three-day event is expanded to include 35+ workshops, all designed to help you pass the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. From tactical strategies for answering MBE questions to developing a strong bar exam mindset, this Summit has got you covered.

The best part? The Virtual Bar Exam Summit is 100 percent free! And you don’t even have to wear pants to attend (because it is online; please wear pants if you leave your house to watch).

WORKSHOPS INCLUDE:

  • State Of The Bar Exam (cause #wtf is actually going on with the bar exam right now is still super confusing)
  • Bar Exam Basics
  • Time Management For The Bar Exam
  • Strategies, Practice, and Advanced Technique trainings for the MBE, MEE, and MPT
  • Imposter Syndrome & The Bar Exam
  • Tips For Taking The Bar Exam Online
  • A Crash Course in Learning Styles
  • Active v. Passive Learning
  • The 3 Step Process For Moving On From Bar Exam Failure
  • Bar Exam Lies You’ve Been Told
  • Overcoming Bar Exam Setbacks
  • Creating Your Custom Bar Prep Plan
  • Bar Exam Traps (And How To Avoid Them)
  • A Guide To Supplemental Bar Exam Resources
  • Specific Advice for Repeat Takers
  • Accountability Tips
  • Tough Love with Coach Leslie (this is a MUST-watch for everyone)
  • Strategies For Wellness and Self Care During Bar Prep
  • And more (check the website for updates)

FREE REGISTRATION HERE.

Finally, as an added bonus, all registrants will be entered into a free raffle for the following prizes:

  • a 3-day PMBR course
  • Full Kaplan Bar Review Course
  • Mini Bar Exam Coaching Package with Vinco

‘Borat’ Star Has No Sympathy For Rudy Giuliani, Was Afraid He’d Give Her COVID During Filming

Um… Hmmm. I’m not American. I don’t need to have sympathy. Probably I wouldn’t behave like him. Probably I wouldn’t be tapping somebody’s waist. Probably I wouldn’t lie on the bed. Probably I wouldn’t be drinking during an interview. Probably I wouldn’t do a lot of things like him. But everybody makes their own choices. You have a brain, use it…. And think before you do something because your actions will have reactions.

Maria Bakalova, star of “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm,” during an interview with GQ, commenting as to whether she had any sympathy for Rudy Giuliani after the infamous scene where he can be seen lying on a bed in a hotel with his hand down his pants when she was posing as a reporter. Bakalova said she was nervous to film with Giuliani “because he is a lawyer and lawyers are really smart, so you have to be really, really convincing.” She also revealed that Giuliani refused to take a COVID test prior to meeting with her and that she was scared he might give it to her. Giuliani earned a Razzie nomination for his “performance,” while Bakalova earned Bafta and Academy Award nominations.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Top 50 Biglaw Firm Makes Its First Appearance In The Special Bonus Wars

Welcome to the special bonus party, Arnold & Porter! The firm — 44th on the Am Law 200 — just announced bonuses for their associates.

What’s mostly notable about A&P’s announcement is that they sat out the 2020 round of special bonuses, opting instead for extra money for super high billers but which left most folks making less money than their peers at other firms. But A&P has gone a different route for spring special bonuses — they’re matching the standard set by Davis Polk last month.

Take a look at the schedule of bonuses:


To be eligible for the bonuses, associates have to bill 2,000 hours, annualized with an opportunity for a catch-up payment if you fail to meet the hours by the payment date. And the class of 2020 doesn’t have to meet the hours requirement for the June payment. You can read the firm’s full memo on the next page.

Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Bonus & Salary Increase Alerts.

Judge Dismisses Nunes Suit Against Fusion GPS For Doing The RICOs

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In March of 2019, Rep. Devin Nunes sued a Twitter cow, the first salvo in a long campaign to smite his many enemies with hundred million dollar judgments.

It’s not going well.

The case against Twitter was dismissed. The Washington Post defamation suit was dismissed. The CNN suit was dismissed. The Esquire suit was dismissed. The McClatchy suit was withdrawn, as was the one against his own constituents for daring to point out that the congressman calls himself a farmer but hasn’t been engaged in agriculture for years.

Along the way, Nunes managed to make his razzledazzle libelslander lawyer Steven Biss famous — infamous, really — for his hilariously disastrous legal pleadings. Twice last week, Biss’s antics earned him a stern rebuke from a federal judge as they booted his wackadoo cases off the docket.

In the first, Biss represented the congressman in an absolutely bizarre suit against research company Fusion GPS, which itself became infamous for producing the Steele Dossier in 2015. Nunes claimed that Fusion colluded with the Campaign for Accountability to file multiple ethics complaints against him, and that this amounted to civil RICO, tampering with a judicial proceeding, intimidating him as a “witness” in his own congressional hearing (sorry, what?), and tortious interference with his right to get re-elected by a ten-point margin.

Spoiler Alert: It’s not RICO. It’s never RICO. A bunch of people who think the plaintiff is a braying jackass and say so at the same time do not amount to a “pattern and practice” of criminal conduct. On the plus side, U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. simply dismissed the suit and declined to impose the requested sanctions on Nunes and Biss, so… let’s call that a win.

Unfortunately for Nunes’ longtime aide Derek Harvey, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett was feeling less generous. Harvey sued CNN in October over its coverage of the Ukraine impeachment scandal. The plaintiff didn’t deny that he worked with Trump’s team to gin up the smear campaign against Joe Biden and his son — the text messages proving it are already in the public record. But Harvey claimed to have been grievously injured by allegations that he took a trip to Vienna as part of these efforts, and so he demanded $30 million to make him whole.

So, how’d that one go?

“Plaintiff Harvey and his counsel unreasonably and vexatiously extended this matter in bad faith with the filing of a last-minute Amended Complaint which did not in any way seek to cure the deficiencies previously addressed by this Court,” Judge Bennett wrote.

The court further describes the case as simply another front in Devin Nunes’s fatwa against a free press: “Harvey’s suit is at heart, a continuation of litigation of Congressman Nunes with respect to media coverage of his own political efforts in support of former President Trump.”

So Derek Harvey joins the list of Biss clients facing liability for clogging the federal docket with crap SLAPP suits.

This Court also specifically warned that such Amended Complaint would be subject to dismissal if the Plaintiff failed to cure the noted deficiencies. (Id.) Nevertheless, after the clerk’s office of this Court had closed and just hours before the deadline of midnight on March 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint nearly identical to the original Complaint filed in this case and thoroughly discussed in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion. As the above analysis explains, the Plaintiff did not cure any of the deficiencies noted by the Court. The filing of such an Amended Complaint is the sort of bad faith courts have repeatedly found to merit sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the courts’ inherent power to sanction.

Womp womp.

Ah, well, at least he’s in good company.

Nunes v. Fusion GPS [Docket via Court Listener]
Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc. [Docket via Court Listener]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.