Commercial Litigation Update

The New York County Commercial Division rules differ materially from rules in New York County generally and, over time, have come to mirror the more stringent federal demands. One such key difference is with respect to expert disclosures, specifically Rule 13(c), which can be a disastrous trap for those unfamiliar with its requirements.

Most practitioners are familiar with CPLR § 3101(d), governing expert disclosure in New York generally, which does not require a written report but only that the expert disclosure—traditionally drafted by counsel—state “in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify, the qualifications of each expert witness and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” In contrast, New York County’s Commercial Rule 13(c) requires that, “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, expert disclosure must be accompanied by a written report, prepared and signed by the witness, if either (1) the witness is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case, or (2) the witness is a party’s employee whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony.” Rule 13(c) also sets forth certain requirements for the content of the report. Specifically, “[t]he report must contain:

(A) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and the reasons for them;

(B) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinion(s);

(C) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinion(s);

(D) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;

(E) a list of all other cases at which the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the previous four years; and

(F) a statement of the compensation to be paid to the witness for the study and testimony in the case.”

Drawing from established precepts of Massachusetts law that a judge may fill in an omitted contractual term consistent with the intent of the parties, a Massachusetts Appeals Court recently affirmed a trial court’s conclusion that the parties had agreed to commission payments for an indefinite period of time and as a result, the payments would continue for as long as the Defendant continued receiving revenue from the underlying customer.

In Prism Group, Inc. v. Slingshot Technologies Corporation, a dispute arose between Slingshot  Technologies Corp. (“Slingshot”) and Prism Group (“Prism”), a one-person sales company Slingshot engaged to procure customers for Slingshot’s business of providing secure facsimile services in the healthcare industry. In email correspondence from the establishment of two customer accounts in question, the parties agreed that Prism would receive a commission of a percentage of the revenue Slingshot received from customers Prism brought in. At issue in this dispute were two lucrative client relationships that generated $9 million and $29 million for Slingshot, respectively. Despite Prism undisputedly completing its performance under the contracts, and Slingshot originally agreeing in email correspondence to pay Prism a set percentage of the revenues generated from these clients, Slingshot reduced and ultimately stopped paying Prism any commission, despite the ongoing nature of the underlying customer relationships.

In a major win for healthcare providers, on September 20th a Louisiana state court jury awarded $421 million in favor of an out-of-network provider in its long dispute with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (“BCBS of Louisiana”). BCBS of Louisiana is the largest insurer in the State of Louisiana.

Payors have developed a reputation for underpaying or denying payment to providers altogether. This is especially true for providers who do not have contracts with insurance companies and, as a result, are out-of-network. Meanwhile providers who have contracts with  insurance companies, i.e., in-network providers, are subject to preferential contract rates and in exchange are supposed to be paid in a timely manner. However, many providers have learned this is not what happens. Out-of-network providers, in particular, face an uphill battle to get reimbursed for the medically necessary services rendered to patients. The out-of-network provider in this case experienced just that.

Since there is no contract between the provider and payor in an out-of-network context, the provider submits its billed charges to the payor. Many states have balance billing laws that preclude the provider from seeking payment from the insured directly. Knowing that the provider has limited recourse, insurance companies will often either not pay or pay slowly. St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery (“St. Charles”) is well-known for its treatment of cancer patients. After not being appropriately reimbursed for the services rendered to patients, St. Charles filed its lawsuit in Louisiana state court in 2017. According to St. Charles, BCBS of Louisiana would authorize surgeries, the providers would perform those surgeries pursuant to the authorizations, and then the insurer would not render the appropriate payment. The case involved about 7,000 procedures that were performed on an out-of-network basis. St. Charles claimed that BCBS of Louisiana only paid approximately 9% of the total amount billed for these services. St. Charles’s claims against the insurance company were for fraud and abuse of rights. The insurance company’s defense included arguments that authorizing medical treatment did not guarantee payment at those rates. Rather, BCBS of Louisiana negotiated individual deals for out-of-network reimbursement with brokers or employers.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”), along with other federal and state law enforcement partners, announced the annual National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action using criminal enforcement to target a wide variety of alleged health care fraud schemes.

What Has Stayed the Same and What Has Changed?

Similar to last year’s all-encompassing “takedown,” this year’s enforcement action charged defendants with schemes related to telemedicine and laboratory fraud; diversion of controlled substances (HIV medications and prescription stimulants); addiction treatment schemes; opioids and other familiar types of health care fraud (such as home health, DME and kickbacks).  However, the “headline” this year was a $900 million case in Arizona involving medically unnecessary amniotic wound grafts.

The 2024 enforcement action charged 193 defendants who allegedly have committed over $2.75 billion in fraud. The cases were brought by 32 different U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and 11 State Attorney Generals’ Offices. Although the dollar figure at issue is slightly higher than the 2023 enforcement action, the number of defendants is strikingly higher, with almost two and a half times as many defendants charged. Similarly, the cases were brought in almost twice as many federal districts as last year, suggesting that the Fraud Section is building more partnerships with U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide.