Cookson v. Ramge

299 Neb. 128 (2018) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · February 23, 2018 · No. No. S-17-521

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-513 does not prohibit health insurance policies from imposing different copayments for covered services provided by different types of licensed providers. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action brought by policyholders seeking copayment parity for chiropractic and medical services.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Cassel, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Stacy, J.; Kelch, J.; Funke, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
February 23, 2018
Docket number
No. S-17-521
Procedural posture
Policyholders brought a declaratory judgment action concerning whether Nebraska insurance law permits different copayments for covered services performed by different types of licensed providers. The district court overruled the policyholders' summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted the petition to bypass review by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and affirmed.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and admitted evidence show no genuine issue of material fact or ultimate inference and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a declaratory judgment action presenting a question of law, including statutory interpretation, the appellate court reaches its conclusion independently of the trial court's conclusion.
Precedential value
Published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Amanda E. Cookson et al. v. Bruce R. Ramge, director, Nebraska Department of Insurance
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

insurance coveragestatutory interpretationlegislative intentplain meaning ruleappellate procedure

Practice areas

insurancehealth lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-513 requires health insurance policies to impose identical copayments for a covered service regardless of whether the service is provided by a chiropractor or a medical doctor.
  2. Whether the statute's language is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant resort to legislative history.

Holdings

  1. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-513 does not prohibit an insurer from requiring different copayments for different types of providers. The statute requires coverage or reimbursement for a covered service when performed by an authorized listed provider, but it does not require the policyholder's copayment to be identical regardless of provider type.
  2. Because the plain language of § 44-513 is clear and does not require copayment parity, resort to legislative history is unnecessary.
  3. An appellate court will not read into a statute a meaning that is not there.

Key quotations

The plain language of § 44-513 does not prohibit an insurer from requiring different copayments for different types of providers. (299 Neb. at 135)

Factual background

Nebraska health insurance policies permitted insurers to charge policyholders higher copayments for covered services obtained from chiropractors than for the same services obtained from medical doctors, even when both providers were in-network and legally authorized to perform the service. Three Nebraska residents and a nonprofit corporation challenged that practice, arguing that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-513 required equal copayments for the covered service regardless of provider type.

Procedural history

The policyholders sued the director of the Nebraska Department of Insurance seeking a declaration that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-513 prohibited insurance policies from imposing a higher copayment when a covered service was obtained from a chiropractor rather than a medical doctor. The district court concluded that the statute did not require equal copayments, overruled the policyholders' summary judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint. The Nebraska Supreme Court accepted the appeal for bypass review and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…