Jeanene Harlick v. Blue Shield of California

In our original opinion, we interpreted the word “Act” in the Parity Act’s 2003 implementing regulation (CaLCode Regs, tit. 28, § 1300.74.72(a)) to refer to the “Parity Act.” See Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 656 F.3d 832, 845 (9th Cir. 2011). In my view, this interpretation of the word “Act” provided the lynchpin for our conclusion that the Parity Act was not limited by the provisions of the KnoxKeene Act. Therefore, we determined that the Parity Act mandated coverage for all “medically necessary” services by medical insurers. However, in Blue Shield’s Petition for Rehearing and…