DeBofsky Law Founder, Mark DeBofsky, filed an amicus brief on March 17, 2023, on behalf of 9 prominent organizations in support of a rehearing en banc in the case of David and Natasha Wit v. United Behavioral Health. The amicus brief urges the court to overturn the panel’s decision that threatens the availability of insurance coverage for the treatment of behavioral health conditions.

The amicus brief was filed on behalf of the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, American Hospital Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, California Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers, National Council for Mental Wellbeing, and REDC Consortium.

These organizations support the District Court for the Northern District of California findings that the country’s largest managed healthcare and health insurance company for behavioral health services, United Behavioral Health (UBH), routinely denied patients access to covered outpatient, intensive outpatient, and residential mental health and substance use disorder treatment based on the application of guidelines that were found inconsistent with generally accepted standards of care.

The brief argues that the panel’s decision undermines access to safe and effective treatment for behavioral health and substance use disorders, setting a dangerous precedent for health insurance coverage. As the number of Americans struggling with behavioral health issues continues to increase, it is essential to ensure that access to necessary treatment is not impeded.

Download Mental Health Amicus Brief

Get your copy of the March 17, 2023 Amicus Brief – Rehearing En Banc Behavioral Health Coverage below for more detailed information about the case.

Instant Download of Amicus Brief

Background of the Wit vs United Behavioral Health (UBH) Case

  • David and Natasha Wit sued United Behavioral Health (UBH) in two separate cases in the Northern District of California.
  • In 2019, the district court found that UBH had improperly denied coverage for treatment of behavioral health conditions in both cases, following a 10-day bench trial and extensive briefing by the parties.
  • The district court’s decisions resulted in a nationwide impact on coverage for treatment of behavioral health and substance use disorders, and were considered landmark rulings.
  • UBH appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on January 26, 2023, overturning the district court’s findings of fact concerning UBH’s conduct.
  • In response, several organizations, including the ones represented in Mark DeBofsky’s amicus brief, filed a motion for rehearing en banc to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Related Articles

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Lawyers who represent employees in severance negotiations should be aware and take heed of the recent New York federal court ruling in Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 2023 WL 2388757 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2023). That case illustrated a dangerous pitfall that may unwittingly result in unintended unfortunate consequences based on the court’s finding that an employee’s release of her employer also waived the employee’s right to sue her disability insurer. […]

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The outcome of Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases often turns on how courts interpret the meaning of specific benefit plan terms. The recently decided case of Stein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 16, illustrates what happens when plan terms are unclear and can have different meanings. […]

Courts Should Follow 8th Circ. On ERISA Procedure Rules

There is no provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 mandating that claimants must exhaust internal appeals as a precondition to filing a lawsuit to challenge a claim denial. Nonetheless, most courts have required claimants to exhaust prelitigation appeals before their cases may be heard in court. […]