Search for: "Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. State" Results 161 - 180 of 251
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2007, 8:09 am
Blue Cross of MI    Eastern District of Michigan at DetroitALGENON L. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 12:15 pm by Law Lady
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the provider's argument that OPM incorrectly interpreted the employee's health plan with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 2:05 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
The following is helpful information for injured people and their doctors to obtain payment for bills.1 Bills should be submitted to PIP & also to Major Medical and to Patient The medical provider must first submit the unpaid bills to the patient's car insurance carrier Personal Injury Protection (PIP carrier), and/or any Blue Cross/Blue Shield or other related medical provider, and fill out any documents required by the insurance company.2. [read post]
17 May 2016, 9:14 am by Caroline Mala Corbin
Instead, it required insurance companies – private insurance carriers like Aetna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield – to issue entirely separate plans. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm by Michael Stevens
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati 08a0454p.06  USA v. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm by Michael Stevens
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati 08a0454p.06  USA v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 2:20 pm by David Cosgrove
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., the Sixth Circuit observed that plan-wide claims are distinct from claims seeking to correct the denial of individual benefits. 409 F.3d 710, 718 (6th Cir. 2005). [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 7:58 pm by Peter Vodola
Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 447 Pa.Super. 436, 669 A.2d 975, 983 (Pa.Super.1995). * * * Significantly, the court has declared that causes of action in the nature of a penalty are not assignable. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 1:03 pm by Eugene Volokh
Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) ("obsessive-compulsive disorder," which the court concluded was not sufficiently stigmatized); Doe v. [read post]