• we represent the interests of medical providers.

    In a world of managed care and cost-controlling insurers,

  • we help providers prevail.

    When insurance companies use nefarious tactics,

  • Hospitals turn to us to fight back.

    When repayment demands lead to recoupments and offsets,

“Focused on Health Care from the Provider’s Perspective”

Attorneys at the forefront of health care insurance litigation

Axelrod LLP exclusively represents individual
healthcare provider clients.

We represent physicians, chiropractors, provider practice groups, hospitals, medical device and durable medical equipment suppliers, and provider contracting companies - against health insurers. We have been defending doctors and other health care providers against insurance company tactics for 20 years. Our attorneys create innovative legal strategies, not only in litigation, mediation and arbitration, but in internal appeals and transactional work, including negotiating participating provider agreements.

We win cases without destroying the underlying
provider-insurer dynamic.

Understanding the viewpoint of both sides, we are able to effectively resolve disputes involving complex health insurance matters, including medical necessity denials, experimental and investigational denials, recoupments and offsets, misrepresentation claims, and fraud and abuse charges. While preserving the delicate, continuing relationship between health care providers and insurers, we have made new law on behalf of our clients particularly in the areas of recoupments and offsets.

Latest News

  • In a long-running battle between our client Apex Toxicology, LLC, a toxicology services provider, and United Healthcare, in which Axelrod LLP is co-counsel, the Magistrate Judge recommended that United Healthcare's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint be denied. United Healthcare contended that Apex failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in this ERISA action. We argued that because United Healthcare's Special Investigation Unit pended Apex's claims, its normal appeals channels could not moot this action, rendering any internal appeals futile. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny the motion to dismiss on these grounds. The District Court then affirmed and adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and ordered Defendants to serve an answer.
    Read more

  • In Long Island Neurosurgical Associates, P.C. v. Highmark Blue Shield, the Court denied Highmark's motion to dismiss this ERISA action based on an anti-assignment provision. In this case, Highmark relied on a provision in its Administrative Services Agreement ("ASA") with a self-funded plan, not the Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). We argued, successfully, that because the ASA was not itself an ERISA plan document like a SPD it could not be used as the basis to challenge the assignment to the Plaintiff. The Court agreed.
    Read more

  • Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirms District Court decision holding that Blue Cross Blue Shield defendants are subject to per se standard of review in In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2406).
    Read more

  • Axelrod LLP successfully resolved an action concerning termination of insurance coverage.

  • Court holds that Blue Cross Blue Shield defendants are subject to per se standard of review in In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2406).
    Read more

  • Axelrod LLP files action on behalf of surgical center against Aetna Insurance Company for pending claims in its special investigation unit.
    Read more

  • We represent health care providers against health insurers. We do not represent health care insurers. We consider it a conflict of interest to do so.
  • Insurer Tactics
    "The Special Investigations Unit of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island – led by a lead investigator (and former member of the FBI), a senior medical director, and in-house counsel – interrogated our client in his office. As characterized by the Court at trial, while the investigator called it a 'friendly chat,' it was 'really a fraud investigation in sheep’s clothing.'”
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of R.I. v. Korsen, 945 F. Supp. 2d 268 (D.R.I. 2013)