W. A. Griffin v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13429
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
W. A. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant- Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-04950-SEG
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13429
Before J ILL PRYOR , NEWSOM , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
W.A. Griffin, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing her Employee Retirement Income Security Act
claims against United Healthcare Services, Inc. On appeal, she ar-
gues that the district court erred in concluding that she did not have
the right to sue under ERISA for statutory damages. After careful
consideration, we affirm.
I
Griffin is a dermatologist who has filed many pro se suits in
this Court.1 This particular case concerns her efforts to obtain doc-
uments from United Healthcare Services Inc. connected to her
treatment of two patients. Upon receiving services from Griffin,
both patients signed documents that assigned their “rights and ben-
efits” under their insurance plans to Griffin. While seeking reim-
bursements for treating the patients from United, Griffin alleges
that she requested documentation from United but that it failed to
provide the information. 2 Thereafter, Griffin filed suit alleging
1 See, e.g., Griffin v. Coca-Cola Refreshments U.S., Inc., 989 F.3d 923, 927 (11th Cir.
2021) (“Our other opinions have been unpublished; we choose to publish to-
day in hopes of resolving this recurring litigation.”).
2 We express no view on whether Griffin adequately pleaded that United,
which is the claims administrator for the insurance plans at issue, is a “plan
administrator” under ERISA because resolving that question is unnecessary to
decide this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-13429 Opinion of the Court 3
that United’s failure to supply this documentation violated statu-
tory requirements of ERISA and that she was entitled to statutory
damages.
The district court dismissed Griffin’s complaint because it
concluded that the assignment of rights signed by Griffin’s patients
did not confer an independent right for Griffin to pursue ERISA
statutory penalties on their behalf. This is Griffin’s appeal.
II
We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, 312 F.3d 1222,
1225 (11th Cir. 2002). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,
1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Still, a pro se litigant is “subject to the rele-
vant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
As relevant here, ERISA requires plan administrators to fur-
nish a plan “participant” or “beneficiary” with certain information
elsewhere specified in the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). If the plan
administrator refuses to provide such information or fails to do so
in 30 days, a court may impose a penalty in “the amount of up to
$100 a day from the date of such failure or refusal.”3 Id. “[T]o
3 The penalty was increased to $110 per day via regulation for claims filed after
July 29, 1997. 29 C.F.R. § 2575.502c-1.
USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13429
maintain an action under ERISA, a plaintiff must have standing to
sue under the statute.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 931.4
Although healthcare providers like Griffin generally are not
“participants” or “beneficiaries” under ERISA, we have stated that
a healthcare provider “may obtain derivative standing for payment
of medical benefits through a written assignment from a plan par-
ticipant or beneficiary.” Id. at 932. When scrutinizing such assign-
ments, we have emphasized that the transfer of the general right
to recover benefits provided by an ERISA plan does not necessarily
transfer the right to pursue non-payment claims, including statu-
tory penalties. Id.5 Thus, to assess whether one has transferred the
right to assert claims for statutory penalties under ERISA, we must
“first determine the scope of the patients’ assignments to [the
healthcare provider]” and “whether they purport to give her the
right to bring . . . non-payment (breach of fiduciary duties and stat-
utory penalties) claims.” Id. In the absence of more specific lan-
guage, a patient does not transfer the right to assert ERISA claims
for statutory penalties when she executes a written assignment
4 Notably, in this context, standing “is not jurisdictional, Article III standing,
but rather the right to make a claim under the statute.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 931
n.4.
5 Here, again, “we need not decide whether the assignment of nonpayment
claims provides derivative standing.” Griffin, 989 F.3d at 932 n.5. Even if we
assume such standing exists, the assignments at issue here do not specifically
confer the right to pursue statutory penalties under ERISA from Griffin’s pa-
tients to her.
USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-13429 Opinion of the Court 5
stating “[t]his is a direct legal assignment of my rights and benefits
under the policy.” Id. at 932–33.
III
The principles we articulated in Griffin show why the district
court did not err in dismissing Griffin’s suit. Griffin, 989 F.3d at
932–33. The assignments signed by Griffin’s patients contain gen-
eral language about the conferral of “rights and benefits.” In the
absence of an assignment with more specific language, courts—in-
cluding this one—have repeatedly held that Griffin lacks statutory
standing to bring ERISA claims for statutory penalties on behalf of
her patients. See Griffin v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 641 F. App’x 869,
872 n.4 (11th Cir. 2016); Griffin, 989 F.3d at 1237 n.1. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13429 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --