IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILMINGTON PAIN & §
REHABILITATION CENTER, P.A., § No. 472, 2017
on behalf of itself and all others §
similarly situated, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellant, § C.A. No. N15C-06-218
§
v. §
§
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY §
INSURANCE COMPANY and §
GARRISON PROPERTY AND §
CASUALTY INSURANCE §
COMPANY, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Decided: December 12, 2017
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of December 2017, having considered the appellant’s notice and
supplemental notice of appeal from interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule
42, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center, P.A. (“WPRC”) is a
Delaware outpatient care facility that specializes in physical medicine and
rehabilitation. WPRC regularly treats Delaware residents for injuries incurred in
automobile accidents.
(2) USAA General Indemnity Insurance Company and Garrison Property
and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively “USAA”) are engaged in the
business of insurance. USAA regularly sells automobile insurance policies in
Delaware.
(3) Delaware law requires that owners of motor vehicles registered in
Delaware must maintain insurance coverage for personal injury claims arising out
of an automobile accident.1 Personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage is defined
as “[c]ompensation to injured persons for reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred within 2 years from the date of the accident,” including medical expenses.2
(4) In 2015, WPRC filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that
USAA’s use of a computerized bill review system to review the reasonableness of
PIP claims has led to the wrongful underpaying of those claims. WPRC filed the
complaint as a proposed class action on behalf of all Delaware health care providers
who, at any time since June 19, 2012, have billed medical-expense-related PIP
claims to USAA, where USAA has subjected those claims to the computerized bill
review system.
1
21 Del. C. § 2118(a)(2)(a).
2
Id.
2
(5) On October 17, 2017, the Superior Court issued an opinion denying
WPRC’s motion for class certification. The Superior Court ruled that the proposed
class did not meet the requirements for certification under Superior Court Civil Rule
23.
(6) WPRC filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal
from the Superior Court’s October 17 opinion. By order dated November 15, 2017,
the Superior Court denied the application after determining that certification of an
interlocutory appeal from its October 17 opinion was not warranted under the
principles and criteria of Rule 42(b).
(7) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of the Court.3 In this case, the Court agrees with the Superior Court that
Rule 42(b)’s principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of
the Superior Court’s October 17, 2017 opinion denying WPRC’s motion to certify a
class action.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
3
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
3