Igal Staw, M.D. v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. dba Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Igal Staw, is a physician who has filed a four-count complaint against the defendant, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which is a health insurer.   In count one, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding his status as a “non-participating physician” under the defendant's health insurance policies.   The defendant has filed a motion to strike count one because:  (1) the plaintiff's other causes of action, set forth in counts two, three and four, provide him with alternative and equally effective means of relief; ¹  and (2) the plaintiff has failed to comply with Practice Book § 17–56(b).  For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.

Under Practice Book § 17–56, a trial court has “wide discretion to render a declaratory judgment unless another form of action clearly affords a speedy remedy as effective, convenient, appropriate and complete.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Coscina v. Coscina, 24 Conn.App. 190, 192, 587 A.2d 159 (1991).   It appears to this court that the other three counts of the plaintiff's complaint could be resolved against the plaintiff on grounds that do not address the issue raised by the declaratory judgment.   Thus, the resolution of those counts would not necessarily “settle the legal relationship of the parties ․” Leoni v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 21 Conn.App. 77, 83, 571 A.2d 153 (1990).   Accordingly, the court rejects the defendant's claim that count one should be stricken on this ground.

The defendant also claims that the motion to strike should be granted because the plaintiff has failed to comply with Practice Book § 17–56(b) because he did not give notice to all interested parties.   The defendant has failed on its part, however, to conform with Practice Book § 10–39(b) because it failed to provide the names and residences of the alleged interested parties or state their interest in the cause of action.   Accordingly, the court rejects the defendant's claim that count one should be stricken on this ground as well.   See, e.g., Harrison v. Ranjan, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham, Docket No. CV 09 6000854 (June 29, 2010, Riley, J.).   Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Count two is a third-party beneficiary claim in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached various insurance policies by failing to pay for the covered services rendered by the plaintiff to his patients.   Count three is a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42–110a et seq., in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant represented that it provides benefits for covered services provided by a “nonparticipating physician” but has failed to do so.   Count four is a tortious interference claim in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's conduct interfered with the plaintiff's beneficial relationship with his patients by requiring them to seek medical care and attention elsewhere..  FN1. Count two is a third-party beneficiary claim in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached various insurance policies by failing to pay for the covered services rendered by the plaintiff to his patients.   Count three is a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42–110a et seq., in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant represented that it provides benefits for covered services provided by a “nonparticipating physician” but has failed to do so.   Count four is a tortious interference claim in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's conduct interfered with the plaintiff's beneficial relationship with his patients by requiring them to seek medical care and attention elsewhere.

Fischer, Jack W., J.