W.P. v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC
||ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC
||April 9, 2015
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Tim A. Baker
||Tanya Walton Pratt
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|November 8, 2017
ENTRY ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 77 ) is GRANTED for the limited purpose discussed herein. The alternative request for Certification and Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED as moot. The Mo tion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Filing No. 48) is now GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts I and II are reinstated to the extent that Plaintiffs assert that Anthem wrongfully denied ABA therapy hours for non-medical reasons in vi olation of the Indiana Autism Mandate. Having reinstated the state law claims for violation of the Autism Mandate, Counts I and II remain for trial. Count II's equitable relief claim for wrongful denial and Count III in its entirety remain dismissed. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/8/2017. (MEJ) Modified on 11/9/2017 to clarify (MEJ).
|February 15, 2017
ORDER granting 63 Motion to Strike the class allegations of Plaintiff A.B. and his parents and granting 66 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint by no later than February 21, 2017. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/15/2017. (CBU)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?