Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn

Virginia Bell Flynn

Subscribe to Virginia Bell Flynn's Posts

Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, health care litigation, including ERISA and out-of-network issues, and consumer litigation in over 21 states nationwide. As a result of new legal developments, she increasingly counsels clients to ensure they comply with the myriad of growing laws in the consumer law with a particular emphasis on the intersection of TCPA and HIPAA.

Follow:Read more about Virginia Bell FlynnVirginia Bell's Linkedin Profile

On January 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the federal government’s request for a stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program. Five days later, on January 12, the Department of Justice advised the court that the parties are discussing returning the challenged approvals to HRSA for reconsideration and that they “plan to dismiss the appeal in short order,” signaling that the current version of the pilot is unlikely to move forward on appeal.

On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Guardian Flight, leaving in place the Fifth Circuit’s June 2025 decision that we covered in our prior post (available here). As a result, within the Fifth Circuit, providers cannot rely on the No Surprises Act (NSA) itself to enforce Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) awards in court and face a heightened standing bar for ERISA-based claims where patients are insulated from financial harm. And the persuasive effect of the Fifth Circuit’s holding is bolstered nationwide.

On December 29, 2025, Chief Judge Lance Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in American Hospital Association v. Kennedy. The court enjoined implementation of HRSA’s 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program “pending further order,” blocking the program from going into effect on January 1, 2026 (and April 1, 2026 for one manufacturer).

On January 6, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order further extending the effective date of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) “revoke-all” requirement in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) to January 31, 2027. That provision would require callers to treat a revocation of consent made in response to one type of informational call or text message as applying to all future calls and text messages from that caller on unrelated matters. The Bureau found good cause to continue the waiver while the FCC reviews comments filed in response to its 2025 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which specifically asks whether the revoke-all rule should be modified or replaced to give consumers more tailored control over unwanted calls. The FCC also noted that requiring companies to implement costly, enterprise-wide changes now could result in unnecessary compliance expenditures if the rule is later revised.

Colorado House Bill 25-1002, effective January 1, 2026, amends Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-16-104(5.5) to require health benefit plans to use nationally recognized, not-for-profit clinical criteria when making coverage and utilization review determinations for behavioral health, mental health, and substance use disorder treatment. The statute establishes a uniform approach to coverage and utilization review and tightens state-level expectations for compliance with the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).

A coalition of hospital associations and individual safety‑net providers recently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) newly announced 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As framed in the complaint, the program would replace the 30‑year‑old practice of offering 340B discounts at the point of sale with a post‑dispense rebate for a set of high‑volume drugs, compelling covered entities to pay wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) upfront and then pursue reimbursement from manufacturers. The plaintiffs contend the shift will impose hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative and cash‑flow costs on safety‑net hospitals, jeopardize care in rural and underserved communities, and reflect a sudden, unexplained reversal of HRSA’s longstanding position that upfront discounts are the most effective and efficient way to administer the program.

Private equity’s footprint in health care has expanded rapidly over the past decade, and in response states have begun to retool long‑standing doctrines and create new guardrails that target ownership, control, and transparency. The result is an emerging patchwork of laws and review processes that remake the corporate practice of medicine landscape, constrain common “friendly PC” structures, and require far more visibility into transactions involving private equity, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and management services organizations (MSOs).

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.

Effective September 1, 2025, SB 140 significantly expanded Texas’ telephone solicitation statute. SB 140 expressly covers text messages and similar electronic communications and introduced a direct private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), with exposure to treble damages, mental‑anguish damages, and attorney’s fees. Recently, a case in the Western District of Texas brought by Ecommerce Marketers Alliance (d/b/a Ecommerce Innovation Alliance), Flux Footwear, and Stodge (d/b/a Postscript) against the State of Texas ended with a joint motion to dismiss after the Texas Attorney General clarified that companies who engage in consent‑based text message programs are not subject to the state’s registration and disclosure requirements. Still, SB 140’s new DTPA cause of action increases the cost of missteps and companies should document affirmative consent.