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

What Damages Are Available If You File a Lawsuit Seeking ERISA Benefits?

What Damages Are Available If You File a Lawsuit Seeking ERISA Benefits?

Many employers offer robust benefits packages in addition to monetary compensation. Those benefits can be critical to ensuring your family’s health and financial security. If your benefits claim has been denied, it is essential to understand the applicable laws and damages available in litigation. […]

Marie E. Casciari to Present at PLI’s ‘The Evolving Landscape of Health and Welfare Benefits and ERISA Fiduciary Rules 2023’ in Chicago

We are pleased to announce that Marie E. Casciari of DeBofsky Law will be presenting at the Practising Law Institute’s (PLI) “The Evolving Landscape of Health and Welfare Benefits and ERISA Fiduciary Rules 2023” seminar on “2023 Health and Welfare Litigation Updates.” This hybrid event will be held in Chicago on October 30, 2023, but also offers the opportunity to participate online. […]

Why is the term “Arbitrary and Capricious” So Important in Relation to Disability, Life, Accidental Death, and Medical Benefits from an Employer-Sponsored Benefit Plan?

Why is the term “Arbitrary and Capricious” So Important in Relation to Disability, Life, Accidental Death, and Medical Benefits from an Employer-Sponsored Benefit Plan?

Individuals seeking disability, life, accidental death, or even health benefits under employer-sponsored group benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) may have their claims thwarted due to what is known as either the “arbitrary and capricious” or “abuse of discretion” standard of judicial review. […]