R. B. v. United Behavioral Health

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
R.B., individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 1:21-CV-553
(MAD/PJE)
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
Mae A. D’Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JORDAN LEWIS, ESQ.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
800 S Gay Street – Suite 1100
1100 Knoxville, Tennessee 37929
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARTHUR M. STOCK, ESQ.
LELAND H. BELEW, ESQ.
RANDI A. KASSAN, ESQ.
RYAN P. MCMILLAN, ESQ.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Defendant
DEROHANNESIAN & DEROHANNESIAN
159 Wolf Road – Suite 305
Albany, New York 12205
Attorney for Defendant
GEOFFREY M. SIGLER, ESQ.
CLARE F. STEINBERG, ESQ.
JAMES A. TSOUVLAS, ESQ.
PAUL DEROHANNESIAN, II, ESQ.
BRIAN S. KING, P.C.
420 East South Temple
Suite 420
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Attorney for Objectors
BRIAN KING, ESQ.
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 13

2
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff R.B.1 brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), and the Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1185a (“Parity Act”) against
Defendant United Behavioral Health (“UBH” or “Defendant”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). On
behalf of the class, Plaintiff challenged UBH’s alleged practice of excluding from insurance
coverage all mental health and substance abuse treatment services rendered at residential
treatment centers where any component of the center’s programming is considered “unproven,
experimental, or investigational,” and sought class certification. Compl. at ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 70.
UBH opposed the motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 85.
On September 15, 2023, the Honorable David N. Hurd, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of New York, issued an Order granting class certification over UBH’s
objection. Dkt. No. 97. UBH petitioned the Second Circuit for a review of Judge Hurd’s
certification pursuant to Rule 23(f), which was subsequently denied. Dkt. No. 100. The parties
then began settlement discussions. See Dkt. Nos. 105–108, 110. R. B. filed a motion for final
approval of the settlement agreement with UBH. Dkt. No. 131.
A group of approximately twenty purported class members (the “King Objectors”)
opposed the class settlement on the theory that their claims had not been adequately represented
by Plaintiff R.B. or class counsel. Dkt. No. 126. They filed a motion to appoint class counsel,
Dkt. No. 136, which this Court denied on March 4, 2026, Dkt. No. 169. After their motion was
1 On January 9, 2023, the parties stipulated that this action may proceed using pseudonyms for
Plaintiff and his family members. Dkt. No. 76.
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 13

3
denied, on March 19, 2026, the King Objectors stipulated to the withdrawal of the their objections
and reclassified attorneys’ fees. Dkt. No. 172.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ now unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement
agreement and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. Nos. 115, 131. For the reasons that
follow, the Court grants the motions in their entirety.
II. BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of the case. For a full recitation of the facts,
the parties are referred to this Court’s decisions granting the motion to certify the class and
denying the motion to appoint additional class counsel. Dkt. Nos. 97, 169.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement Agreement
After reviewing the documents filed in preparation for this motion, the Court makes the
following findings:
1. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the form and content of
the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing
(“Notice”) directed to Class Members.
2. In December 2024, Defendant mailed the Class Action Fairness Act Notices
(“CAFA Notices”), previously approved by the Court, to the appropriate
federal official and state official of each state in which a Class Member resides.
3. On February 13, 2025, the Settlement Administrator caused the Notice to be
mailed to all Class Members, which informed Class Members of the terms of
the Settlement Agreement and that the Court would consider the following
issues at a Fairness Hearing: (i) whether to approve the Final Approval Motion
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 13

4
and grant final approval to the Settlement and Plan of Allocation as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether to grant the Fee Motion and determine
the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, if any, to be awarded to
Class Counsel, and the amount, if any, of the incentive award to the Named
Plaintiff; and (iii) any objections by Class Members to any of the above that
were timely and properly served in accordance with the Preliminary Approval
Order. On May 7, 2025, in support of the Final Approval Motion, the
Settlement Administrator filed with the Court proof of mailing of the Notice to
all members of the Class.
4. An objection to the proposed Settlement was filed on April 2, 2025 (Dkt. No.
121) on behalf of two related objectors. On April 30, 2025, this objection was
withdrawn. Dkt. No. 130.
5. A second objection was filed on April 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 126) on behalf of a
group of Objectors, only four of whom are Class Members. This second group
of objectors withdrew their objections on March 18, 2026, after Plaintiff and
the certified class, Defendant, and the objectors reached an agreement to
resolve all of the pending objections. Dkt. Nos. 171, 172.
6. The Settlement Agreement’s plan of allocation provides for three settlement
tiers for purposes of monetary benefit allocation: Wilderness, Multiple, and
Experimental. Dkt. No. 112-2 at 54.
7. 338 class members out of 350 were located for notice. Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the anticipated plan of allocation is subject to
modification by written agreement of the parties. Dkt. No. 112-2 at 14, 54. A
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 13

5
few class members were reclassified in response to objections. The final class
breakdown by settlement tier is as follows: 279 class members in the
Wilderness tier; 3 class members who have two wilderness claims; 47 class
members in the Multiple tier; and 9 class members in the Experimental tier.
8. Class members in the Wilderness tier will receive approximately $936.72; class
members who have two wilderness claims will receive approximately
$1,873.44; class members in the Multiple tier will receive approximately
$9,367.20; and class members in the Experimental tier will receive
approximately $18,734.40.
9. In accordance with the Notice, a Fairness Hearing was held on March 30,
2026.
The Court having entered the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. No. 113), having heard
arguments in support of the Final Approval Motion and the Fee Motion, having reviewed all of
the evidence, including the reaction of the Class, and the record of all proceedings in this
case, and having made the foregoing findings,
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and personal jurisdiction
over the parties to the Action, including the Class Members.
2. The Settlement Agreement and all of its exhibits (as filed with the Court) are
incorporated in this Final Order and Judgment, including the definitions and
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
3. The Class previously certified by the Court is defined as:
All persons covered under ERISA-governed health
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 13

6
care plans, administered or insured by United
Behavioral Health, whose requests for coverage for
mental health and substance abuse treatment services
received at a licensed residential treatment center
were denied in total based on its determination that a
component of such services is considered
experimental, investigational, or unproven.
Dkt No. 97 at 13. The Class is limited to the Class Period set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Dkt. No 1 at 8); see also Dkt. No 97 (class certification order).
4. Notice to Class Members has been given in an adequate and sufficient manner and
the Notice given constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and was reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the
Action, the nature of the claims, the definition of the Class, and their opportunity
to present objections to the Settlement. The Notice program complied in all
respects with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United
States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and the rules of this Court.
5. The Defendant satisfied the requirements of CAFA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
6. The amount of the Settlement, $1,415,000, is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
Settlement amount is within the range of reasonable settlements that would have
been appropriate in this case, based on the nature of the claims, the potential
recovery, the risks of litigation, and settlements that have been approved in other
similar cases.
7. The Named Plaintiff has actively and independently participated in the Class
Action.
8. The Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel have concluded that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 13

7
9. Members of the Class were given the opportunity to object to the Settlement, and
two sets of individuals did so in a timely fashion. All objections to the Settlement
were resolved and withdrawn before the Fairness Hearing. Dkt Nos. 130, 171,
172.
10. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation in all
respects as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class pursuant
to Rule 23(e).
11. The Settlement was not a product of fraud or collusion, and the Court finds it to be
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). The Court finds that: (A) the
Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class; (B) the
Settlement was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the Class is
adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, (ii)
the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the Class,
including the method of processing Class-member claims, and (iii) the terms of the
proposed award of attorneys’ fees, including timing of payment; and (D) the
Settlement treats Class Members equitably relative to each other. See FED. R. CIV.
P. RULE 23(e)(2).
12. The Court also finds the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under the factors
set out in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974),
abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43
(2d Cir. 2000): (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2)
the reaction of the Class to the Settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the
amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability: (5) the risks
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 13

8
of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the Class through the trial; (7)
the ability of Defendant to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of
reasonableness of the Settlement Fund in light of the best possible recovery; and
(9) the range of reasonableness of the Settlement Fund to a possible recovery in
light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d at 463.
13. The terms of the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits to the Settlement
Agreement and to this Final Order and Judgment, shall be forever binding on the
Class.
14. Neither the Settlement, this Final Order and Judgment, any papers related to the
Settlement, nor the fact of Settlement shall be used as a finding or conclusion of
the Court, or an admission by Defendant, of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability
whatsoever.
15. The parties and the Settlement Administrator shall carry out all the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, including distribution of the Settlement Fund in accordance
with the Plan of Allocation to Class Members, and the release provisions in the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
16. Defendant shall have no liability or responsibility for any payments, fees, or costs
under this Final Order and Judgment or the Settlement aside from payment of the
Settlement Amount. Under no circumstances shall Defendant be required to pay
any amounts in furtherance of this Settlement, this Final Order and Judgment, and
the administration of the Settlement other than the payment of the Settlement
Amount.
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 13

9
17. Releases:
a. Class Members and each of their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, predecessors, successors, insurers, representatives, and
assigns fully, final, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge all
Released Persons (defined in Section 1.18 of the Settlement
Agreement) from any and all “Released Claims.” (See Sections 11.1 &
11.2 of Settlement Agreement). “Released Claims” are defined in
Section 1.17 of the Settlement Agreement as:
[A]ny and all actions, causes of actions, claims, and
demands that are, were, or could have been asserted
by Named Plaintiff or any Class Member in the
Action during the Class Period, regardless of legal
theory, known or unknown, concerning any claims
arising out of or related to a denial of coverage
(including any pre or post-service denial, initially or
on appeal) by any Released Persons for mental
health or substance abuse treatment received at a
residential treatment or wilderness program, based in
whole or in part on a determination that the treatment
or a component of the treatment was experimental,
unproven or investigatory.
b. Any available relief to a Class Member under this Settlement
Agreement is the exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims,
regardless of whether a Class Member actually obtains any Monetary
Benefit. (See Section 11.3 of the Settlement Agreement).
18. Class Members are barred and permanently enjoined from prosecuting any and
all Released Claims against Defendant or any of the Released Persons. Class
Members are also permanently enjoined from filing, continuing to prosecute,
or becoming part of any action, including, without limitation, any putative
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 13

10
class actions, filed against the Released Persons or any other person or entity,
and that relate to the subject matter of the Action, insofar as those actions
implicate any of the Released Claims or otherwise interfere with the Settlement
Agreement or the settlement of the claims in this action generally.
19. Nothing in this Final Order and Judgment or the Settlement shall preclude any
action to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
20. Without affecting the finality of this Final Order and Judgment in any way, this
Court will retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction over all parties and Class
Members with regard to implementation of the Settlement, disposition of the
Settlement Fund, and enforcement and administration of this Settlement. The
Court may order any appropriate legal or equitable remedy necessary to
enforce the terms of this Final Order and Judgment and/or the Settlement.
21. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without costs
(except as otherwise provided herein).
B. Motion for Final Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
After reviewing the documents filed in preparation for this motion, the Court makes the
following findings:
1. By Order of September 14, 2023, the Court certified a Class, and appointed as
Class Counsel. Jordan Lewis, P.A., and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, PLLC.
2. The Settlement establishes a common fund of $1,415,000.
3. Litigation of this Action required counsel highly trained in class action law and
procedure as well as the specialized issues presented here. Class Counsel
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 13

11
possess these attributes, and their participation added immense value to the
representation of this large Settlement Class. The record demonstrates that the
Action involved a broad range of complex and novel challenges that Class
Counsel met at every juncture.
4. The claims and defenses are complex and litigating them is both difficult and
time consuming. Although this case was litigated for three years, recovery by
any means other than settlement would likely have required additional years of
litigation.
5. In undertaking to prosecute this complex case entirely on a contingent fee
basis, Class Counsel assumed a significant risk of nonpayment or
underpayment. That risk warrants an appropriate fee.
6. Class Counsel spent years developing the theories underlying the claims in the
instant Action through their efforts in litigating (with both success and failure)
many other cases. These efforts certainly accrued to the benefit of Plaintiffs
and the Settlement Class. In addition, Class Counsel engaged in extensive
investigation, completed a significant amount of discovery, moved for class
certification, responded Defendant’s Motion for Interlocutory Appeal.
7. No objections have been filed to the Motion for Awards of Attorneys’ Fees,
Attorneys’ Expenses, and Service Award to Plaintiff.
8. Finally, an award of one third of the Settlement Fund is consistent with similar
settlements in the Second Circuit and other fee awards in similar class action
settlements that have been finally approved throughout the country.
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 13

12
9. The Court has reviewed the collective lodestar for Class Counsel and has
determined that an award of $471,667 is reasonable, and will not fully
compensate Counsel at their customary rates.
10. Therefore, Class Counsel is hereby awarded $471,667 in attorneys’ fees, which
is roughly 33.33% of the $1,415,000 value of the settlement.
11. Further, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for reimbursement of
$31,994 in expenses to be reasonable and that the expenses were necessarily
incurred in furtherance of the Action. The attorneys’ fee and expense amounts
are approved.
12. The Court finds that Class Counsel’s request for Class Representative’s service
award, to be paid to Plaintiff R.B., is appropriate in light of his extraordinary
contributions to the outcome of this litigation, including initiating the case,
responding to discovery requests, testifying at deposition, working with
Counsel throughout the settlement process, and traveling to, and participating
in, a full day of mediation. A service award in the amount of $15,000 is
approved.
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without
fees or costs to any Party except as provided in this Final Approval Order and Judgment; and the
Court further
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 13

13
ORDERS that the motion for final approval of attorneys’ fees & costs (Dkt. No. 115) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the motion for final approval of the class settlement agreement (Dkt. No.
131) is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:21-cv-00553-MAD-PJE Document 175 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 13