Photo of Chad R. Fuller

Chad R. Fuller

Subscribe to Chad R. Fuller's Posts

Chad is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice with a primary focus in financial services litigation. He is an accomplished trial attorney who has served as lead counsel in state and federal courts across the country in which he represents clients in consumer class actions and general business litigation. Chad has particular speciality with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and has also broadened his practice into more traditional areas of health care litigation.

Follow:Read more about Chad R. FullerChad R.'s Linkedin Profile

On November 24, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum disposition in Dedicato Treatment Center, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., affirming dismissal of an out-of-network provider’s state-law claims as preempted by ERISA’s remedial scheme. The panel’s brief decision underscores that the Court’s 2024 decision in Bristol Holdings (discussed here) applies broadly to state-law causes of action arising from pre-service verification-of-benefits and authorization communications, even where a provider also pleads an alternative ERISA benefits claim pursuant to an assignment of benefits from the member. Although not precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the disposition is a clear, persuasive affirmation of Bristol’s reach.

On October 31, CMS finalized the CY 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) rule (CMS-1832-F), effective January 1, 2026. While primarily directed at Medicare providers, the rule’s changes have clear downstream effects for payors and private insurers that benchmark to Medicare or align commercial policies with federal payment logic. Key themes are higher baseline rates, a stronger push toward value-based care via dual conversion factors, permanent telehealth flexibilities (including virtual supervision), expanded behavioral health integration, and a cost-containment overhaul for skin substitutes.

On October 15, the California Hospital Association (CHA) filed a petition against the California Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) and related entities. The petition challenges the imposition of stringent cost targets on hospitals across California, arguing that these targets are arbitrary, capricious, and not based on comprehensive data analysis. CHA contends that the cost targets violate both state and federal laws, including the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, by being confiscatory and lacking a clear methodology for compliance. Furthermore, the petition asserts that OHCA’s actions were prematurely implemented without adequate stakeholder engagement, potentially leading to significant operational disruptions and threatening the quality and accessibility of health care services.

On September 17, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144) into law, a move in response to recent changes in immunization recommendations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill, which took effect immediately, mandates that health plans cover a wide range of preventive care services, including immunizations, without cost-sharing or utilization management. This legislation is particularly noteworthy for its implications on vaccine coverage requirements.

There has been a flurry of recent activity in a case originally filed by six air ambulance companies claiming $20 million in unpaid emergency services invoices. On June 11, Aetna filed a counterclaim against REACH Air Medical Services LLC, CALSTAR Air Medical Services LLC, Guardian Flight LLC, Med-Trans Corporation, Air Evac EMS Inc., and AirMed International LLC based on alleged manipulation of the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (NSA). On July 2, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim.

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, which affirmed the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue state officials for excluding Planned Parenthood from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.

Background…

In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.

On June 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion in the case involving Guardian Flight, LLC and Med-Trans Corporation, two air ambulance providers, against the defendant insurance company. This case centered around the enforcement of Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) awards under the No Surprises Act (NSA), a law enacted in 2022 to protect patients from unexpected medical bills from out-of-network providers during emergencies.

Last month, we discussed the motion filed by the National Consumers League and four small business owners to intervene in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited. v. FCC. This motion aimed to challenge the Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule. Last week, the District of Columbia, along with 27 states, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc.