Jane Doe v. United Behavioral Health

  • About Us
    • Our Approach
    • Our Mission
    • Parity Leadership Group
  • Parity Reports
    • Federal Report
    • State Reports
  • Know Your Rights
    • Common Violations
    • Glossary
    • Solution
    • What is Parity?
  • Resources
    • Parity Advocacy Resources
    • Consumer Resources
    • State Parity Enforcement Actions
    • Milliman Report Overview
    • Issue Briefs
    • Legal Cases
    • 2018 State Parity Statutes Report

Jane Doe v. United Behavioral Health (U.S. Dist. Ct Northern Dist. of Cal, case no. 4:19-cv-07316-YGR, March 5, 2021).  Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement.  The case centers around a health plan’s explicit exclusion of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) an Intensive Behavioral Health Therapies (IBT) to support children who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.  Plaintiffs brought two ERISA § 1132(a)(3) claims challenging the exclusions.  United asserted that the ABA/IBT exclusions are not treatment limitations under the Federal Parity Law.

The Court held that United was a fiduciary under the ERISA framework.  Judge Rogers also concluded that “On its face, the ABA/IBT exclusion creates a separate treatment limitation applicable only to services for a mental health condition (Autism).  By doing so, the exclusion violated the plain terms of the Parity Act.”

Website enhancements in progress made possible by

Content Disclaimer: Parity Track is a collaborative forum that works to aggregate and elevate the parity implementation work taking place across the country. The content of this website is always evolving. If you are aware of other parity-related work that is not represented on this website, please contact us so that we can continue to improve this website.

Presented by The Kennedy Forum Scattergood Foundation