Legal Opinion

Van Ness v. Blue Cross of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 2001No. A088368, A088539PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

REARDON, Acting P. J.

In 1991 appellant Richard Van Ness purchased health insurance from respondent Blue Cross of California under its prudent buyer program. That program established a two-tiered benefit schedule—the negotiated fee schedule for participating providers and the limited fee schedule for nonparticipating providers. Benefits under the negotiated fee schedule were greater because network providers agreed to cap their fees for Blue Cross subscribers. Van Ness’s treating physician was not part of the prudent buyer network.

When the benefits Blue Cross paid for colonoscopy…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1326, Pens. Plan Guide P 23907b George Peterson v. American Life & Health Insurance Company Creative Health Programs Pacific Southwest Association of Small Employer Firms Richard ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  4. Helfand v. Nationall Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Rader v. Sun Life Assurance Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
  3. Ellena v. Department of InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Employers Insurance of WausauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Brazina v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2003

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API