The plaintiff in Patrick v. Wal-Mart alleged: “Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern of bad faith . . . [and] have among other things, unreasonably delayed and/or denied authorization and/or payment of reasonable, neceessary and worker’s comp related medical treatment, as well as permanent indemnity benefits, as ordered by [the state agency].” No. 11-60217 at 11-12 (May 17, 2012). The Court found that this allegation “invokes three potentially cognizable theories of liability,” but was “devoid of facts to make it plausible” under Twombly — the pleading “fails to identify the specific time or nature of such wrongs . . . [and] does not identify by date or amount or type of service, any of the alleged bad-faith denials and delays . . . .” Id. It found no abuse of discretion in not allowing further amendment, noting “repeated failure[s] to cure deficiencies . . . .” Id. at 12-13 (quoting United States v. Humana Health Plan, 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Recent Related Posts