Legal Opinion

Mintz v. Blue Cross of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 2009No. B207405PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

O’NEILL, J. * —

SUMMARY

The claims administrator under a health insurance plan denied coverage to a plan member for a treatment the administrator deemed investigational. The plan permitted the member to request an independent review of denial of coverage for an experimental or investigational therapy (as required by statute); the administrator advised the member of his general appeal rights, but not of his right to an independent review. The member sued the administrator (not the insurer), alleging causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with contract rights, reckless…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Fletcher v. Western National Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

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

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  2. Bock v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. United National Maintenance, Inc. v. San Diego Convention Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  4. Winchester Mystery House v. Global Asylum, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. No Cost Conference, Inc. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2013

58 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