IN RE: HUMANA INC. MANAGED CARE LITIGATION. PRICE PLAINTIFFS, PRICE, SESSA, KATZ & YINGLING, SANDRA JOHNSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, COVENTRY HEALTH CARE OF GEORGIA, INC., F.K.A. PRINCIPAL HEALTH CARE OF GEORGIA, INC., PRINCIPAL HEALTH CARE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., PACIFICARE OPERATIONS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; LEONARD J. KLAY, M.D., PRICE PLAINTIFFS, PRICE, SESSA, KATZ & YINGLING, SANDRA JOHNSON, PATRICIA FREYRE, REGINA JOI PRICE, ANTHONY SESSA, ARNOLD KATZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. HUMANA, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., PACIFICARE OPERATIONS, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
BARKETT, Circuit Judge: This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, see PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003), reversing, in part, our decision in In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, 285 F. 3d 971 (11th Cir.2002).
In Humana, we, inter alia, affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant managed-health-care organizations’ arbitration clauses, which specifically prohibited punitive damages, were unenforceable because they precluded the recovery of treble damages under the Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See In re Humana, 285 F. 3d at 973. In affirming the district court, we refused to compel arbitration of the RICO claims. See id. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that “since we do not know how the arbitrator will construe the [arbitration clauses’] remedial limitations, the questions [of] whether they render the parties’ agreements unenforceable and whether it is for courts or arbitrators to decide enforceability in the first instance are unusually abstract [and, therefore,] the proper course is to compel arbitration.” PacifiCare, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. at 1536.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in PacifiCare. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard J. Klay, M.D. v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004)…e Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401, 123 S.Ct. 1531, 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003). The Court remanded the case to us, and we in turn remanded it to the district court for reconsideration in light of PacifiCare. See In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litig., 333 F. 3d 1247 (11th Cir.2003). The district court issued a modified order in response, see In re Managed Care Litig., MDL No. 1334, 2003 WL 22410373, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23035 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 15, 2003). The substance of these arbitration orders is not currentl…
-
Leonard J. Klay, M.D. v. ALL, 389 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2004)…irst instance. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc., 538 U.S. at 407, 123 S.Ct. 1531. As a result, we remanded this case to the district court “for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.” In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litig., 333 F. 3d 1247, 1248 (11th Cir.2003). While the issue of the arbitrability of RICO claims in light of contractual punitive damages limitations was on appeal, the physicians amended their complaint to add two new defendants, twelve new physician-plaintiffs, and six…
-
Fernandez v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2003)…unenforceable because “we do not know how the arbitrator will construe the [Arbitration Agreement’s] remedial” provision. See PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., — U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1535-36; In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, 333 F.3d 1247, 2003 WL 21349954, *1 (11th Cir.2003). 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. 5 It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is STAYED pending completion of…
Authorities Cited
- Pacificare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2003)
- In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litig. Price v. Humana Ins. Co., 285 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2002)