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

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of West Virginia’s S.B. 325, which sought to restrict how drug manufacturers implement contract pharmacy policies under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. In a published decision, the court held that manufacturers are likely to succeed on their claim that S.B. 325 is preempted because it impermissibly rewrites the “bargain” Congress struck with manufacturers under its spending power and interferes with the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) exclusive enforcement role.

In a decision of first impression, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo, defined what “evident partiality” means under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA). The court held that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would conclude the arbitrator’s conduct signifies obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the court affirmed confirmation of a FINRA arbitration award and declined to vacate based on an arbitrator’s undisclosed, attenuated prior connections to one side.

On March 20, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a memorandum directing the creation of an internal Healthcare Task Force. The directive underscores that healthcare remains a top enforcement and policy priority for the FTC, reflecting the Administration’s focus on a “more competitive, innovative, affordable, and higher quality healthcare system.”

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Chad Fuller and Virginia Flynn for a practical, forward-looking discussion of the TCPA landscape as part of the CFS Year in Review and Look Ahead series. They explain how courts’ reduced reliance on agency interpretations is creating both opportunity and uncertainty, why plaintiffs’ attorneys are shifting hard toward do-not-call (DNC) and prerecorded-message theories, and how ongoing battles over consent, revocation, and text-message exposure are changing class action risk. The conversation closes with guidance for in-house counsel on tightening DNC compliance, managing vendors, and structuring consent and opt-out processes.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls that use artificial or pre-recorded voice messages. Instead, the court concluded that the TCPA requires only “prior express consent,” which may be provided orally or in writing.

In our January 14 blog, we explained that Chief Judge Lance Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine had entered a nationwide preliminary injunction in American Hospital Association v. Kennedy, blocking the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We also noted that both the district court and the First Circuit denied the government’s requests for a stay, and that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told the First Circuit the parties planned to dismiss the appeal and consider sending the approvals back to HRSA.

In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit in R.R. v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, affirmed the insurer and administrator’s denial of benefits for a dependent’s residential mental health treatment under an ERISA‑governed plan. The court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluded that the denial was supported by the plan’s medical‑necessity criteria and the administrative record. The dissent, however, argued that the majority failed to meaningfully account for a structural conflict of interest and for the administrator’s handling of treating‑provider evidence and prior failed lower levels of care.

On January 26, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the Calendar Year 2027 Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for Medicare Advantage (MA) capitation rates and Medicare Part D payment policies. CMS projects a net average year‑over‑year MA payment change of just 0.09% — roughly a flat environment once medical trend, utilization, and other pressures are considered. CMS frames the proposal as improving “payment accuracy and sustainability,” with a focus on aligning payments more closely with actual beneficiary risk and care rather than documentation intensity.

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.