IBJNews

WellPoint settles Los Angeles lawsuit for $6M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city attorney for Los Angeles announced a $6 million settlement Thursday to resolve a lawsuit that alleged health insurer Anthem Blue Cross illegally dropped more than 6,000 policyholders from coverage.

The settlement is far less than the $1 billion in fines and restitution former Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo threatened when the lawsuit was filed in 2008.

At the time, Delgadillo said some of the dropped policies affected elderly patients and patients with health costs that topped $100,000. Anthem denied the allegations then, and is admitting no fault in the settlement now.

The settlement took into account Anthem's steps to enhance policyholder safeguards, including revised applications and implementation of an independent review process for dropped policies, the city attorney's office said.

The $6 million will be divided between the city and the county, earmarked to be used on consumer enforcement efforts.

None of the people who initially worked on the case for Delgadillo still works in the office and the current staff is satisfied with the settlement, said William Carter, chief deputy city attorney.

Policyholders won't get relief from the settlement, which doesn't call for restitution or reinstatement of insurance policies.

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng said the settlement bars him from making additional comment, and he referred to the city attorney's statement.

Delgadillo filed a similar lawsuit seeking $1 billion in fines and restitution from Blue Shield of California in 2008. It was settled for $2 million in 2011.

Anthem Blue Cross is a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT