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 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.

In an unpublished case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that actions to obtain a judgment and enforce that judgment in a collection lawsuit filed outside the statute of limitations do not create a continuing violation under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

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.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has finalized its rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), addressing prior express consent requirements for sellers to send advertisements and telemarketing notices using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. Notably, the one-to-one requirement has been removed.

California Senate Bill 940 (SB 940), enacted in late 2024, introduces several key changes to arbitrations involving “consumer contracts,” which is defined as a contract prepared by a seller and signed by a consumer for the sale or lease of goods or services or for the extension of credit purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Below, we explore the major provisions of SB 940 and their implications.

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.

Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”