Cross-Plan Offset Claims Dismissed Against UnitedHealth for Lack of Constitutional Standing
The United States Supreme Court’s constitutional standing decision in Thole continues to reverberate throughout ERISA litigation. In Scott v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed challenges to United’s cross-plan offsetting practices because the plaintiffs, plan participants, themselves did not suffer any injury. Rather, each plaintiff paid only copays for their services that would not vary—any injury was suffered by the group health plan itself, not the participant. Plaintiffs were allowed to re-plead their claim to demonstrate constitutional standing.