Peter litigates healthcare disputes in trial and appellate courts throughout the country. He is also retained by medical providers, government officials, and employers to provide advice on regulatory compliance and litigation avoidance. Representative examples include:
Montanile v. Board of Trustees (Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court)
After preserving the key legal issue through briefing and argument in the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit Brief | Argument Audio), Peter and a team of firm lawyers persuaded the United States Supreme Court (Petition) to hear this important case about the scope of reimbursement rights available to federally regulated health insurance plans. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Thomas (Opinion), the Court adopted the position advanced by our firm’s merits briefing (Opening Brief | Reply)and argument (Audio). This was the third of three related cases handled by Peter and our firm before the Supreme Court beginning with Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, argued by Peter in 2005 (Audio), and followed by US Airways v. McCutchen, briefed by our firm in 2013 (McCutchen Brief).
Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual (U.S. Supreme Court)
Peter was retained by the State of Vermont to assist in the preparation of a petition for certiorari (Petition) in this important healthcare preemption case. After our petition was granted, Vermont retained Peter and the firm to continue as co-counsel on the merits before the Court. After briefing (Our Opening Brief | Our Reply) and oral argument by lead counsel, the Solicitor General of Vermont, the Court rejected our position. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan dissented (Opinions).
Dual Diagnosis et al. v. Anthem et al. (Central District of California)
Peter is lead trial counsel for plaintiffs, successful addiction treatment facilities, in this multi-million lawsuit against dozens of Blue Cross entities and welfare plans they insure or administer. The lawsuit alleges that Blue Cross has engaged in a nationwide scheme to injure out of network providers in violation of both federal and California law. On May 31, 2016, the district court held a four-hour hearing on defendants’ coordinated motions to dismiss the operative complaint.
Complaint | Motion to Dismiss | Opposition to Motion
Catastrophically Injured Individual v. Health Plan Fiduciaries (Claims Process)
Peter represented a heroin addict who was rendered quadriplegic in a terrible car accident. Insisting that the accident was not covered, our clients’ health plan refused to pay for any of the $1.3 million in medical bills resulting from the accident or to cover any future medical care. Without any need for litigation (Our Administrative Letter-Brief) (redacted), Peter was able to persuade the health plan to do an about face and cover all relevant medical expenses.