Cases

United States ex rel. Parikh v. Premera Blue Cross, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90814 (D. Wash. 2006)

This case is a false claims case. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel after Defendant asserted an attorney-client privilege regarding conversations attended by Defendants’ Medicare Compliance Officer. During depositions, Defendant argued that Mr. Istafanous was an agent of the legal department and participated for the purpose of identifying risks and determining appropriate actions based on concerns the relator was raising. The court held that Defendant bears the burden of proving privilege. The court found “it is not clear from the record that Mr. Powers or Ms. Hinthorne were actually aware that any particular meeting attended by Mr. Istafanous was conducted as part of an internal legal investigation by Premera or that they were aware of his role as a “representative of the legal department. … [the court allowed] Relator to reopen the depositions of Mr. Powers and Ms. Hinthorne. At the depositions, Relator may question the witnesses to determine whether they and other participants at meetings attended by Mr. Istafanous were informed: (1) that the particular meetings were conducted as part of a legal investigation by Premera; and (2) that Mr. Istafanous attended the meetings as a representative of the legal department. If the witness clearly indicates that the participants in a particular meeting attended by Mr. Istafanous were informed that the meeting was conducted as part of a legal investigation and of Mr. Istafanous’s role, Defendant may assert attorney-client privilege for communications at such a meeting. If the witness is unable to testify that attendees at a particular meeting were informed that the meeting was conducted as part of a legal investigation and of Mr. Istafanous’s role, Defendant shall not be permitted to assert attorney-client privilege for communications at such meetings and Relator may continue to question the witness regarding the substance of such communications.” Decided: December 15, 2006.

Note: Mr. Istafanous, an attorney, served as Primera’s Vice President of Corporate Compliance and Ethics.

Published by
David McGuffey

Recent Posts

Medicaid Estate Recovery – 50 States

The Estate Recovery Rules vary from State to State. The federal minimum requires states to…

3 days ago

Rights of the ward; impact on voting and testamentary capacity; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20

Georgia Guardianship law presupposes that the guardian must act in the best interests of the…

1 week ago

Georgia Medicaid Applicants No Longer Required to Apply for Other Benefits

Medicaid is the payer of last resort so applicants have, historically, been required to apply…

2 weeks ago

2026 Community Spouse Income and Resource Allowances

Effective January 1, 2026, the Community Spouse Resource Allowance will increase to $162,660.00. The combined…

2 weeks ago

Temporary medical consent guardianship; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-18

In some cases, no one can be found who will consent to medical procedures for…

2 weeks ago

Conduct of emergency guardianship hearing; limitations on emergency guardianship; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-16

If an emergency guardianship is warranted, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-16 sets the requirements for how the…

2 weeks ago