Nathan W. v. Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Wis.

  • 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

Nathan W. v. Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Wis. (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of UT, case no. 2:20-cv-00122-JNP-JCB, March 5, 2021).  Judge Jill N. Parrish denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Parity Act claim because Plaintiff had sufficiently met the three-part test to state a claim: 1) identify a specific MH/SUD treatment limitation; 2) identify analogous med/surg care; and 3) allege a plausible disparity.

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