The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI
N.B., a Minor, by her Parents, Natural : Case No. 1:23-cv-386
Guardians, and Next Friends DWAN :
DAVIS and AARON BRAY, et al., : Judge Matthew W. McFarland
Plaintiffs, ;
v. :
HEALTHSOURCE OF OHIO, INC., et al., :
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Join Subrogated Parties
(Doc. 49). Plaintiffs filed a Response in Support of Joinder (Doc. 50), in which they
requested leave to file an amended complaint in order to add a subrogated party.
Defendants did not file a reply or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ request to file an
amended complaint. This matter is therefore ripe for the Court's review.
The Brown County Women’s Health Defendants, Defendant Barbara Patridge,
and Plaintiffs agree that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield should be joined as a
subrogated party to this litigation. (Motion, Doc. 49; Response, Doc. 50.) The Sixth Circuit
has explained that the analysis for joinder under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure proceeds as follows:
First, the court must determine whether the person or entity is a necessary
party under Rule 19(a). Second, if the person or entity is a necessary party,
the court must then decide if joinder of that person or entity will deprive
the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Third, if joinder is not feasible
because it will eliminate the court's ability to hear the case, the court must
analyze the Rule 19(b) factors to determine whether the court should “in
equity and good conscience” dismiss the case because the absentee is
indispensable.
Glancy v. Taubman Ctrs. Inc., 373 F.3d 656, 666 (6th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).
To begin, a necessary party under Rule 19(a) includes an individual who “claims
an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the
action in the person’s absence may .. . leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk
of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the
interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). The parties represent that Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield possesses “a subrogation interest in this [medical malpractice] case for the
benefits paid on behalf of Plaintiff, N.B.” (Motion, Doc. 49, Pg. ID 557; see also Response,
Doc. 50, Pg. ID 582.) A subrogee like Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield fits this
definition of a necessary party. See Snyder Dev. Co. v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-1274,
2019 WL 1115034, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2019) (collecting cases). And, joining this party
would not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction since the United States
removed this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c). (See Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) Thus,
joinder of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield is proper.
Defendants Brown County Women’s Health and Barbara Patridge also seek to join
“any other subrogated entity that has paid medical bills on behalf of Plaintiffs.” (Motion,
Doc. 49, Pg. ID 556.) However, Defendants have not provided the identity of any other
potential entities or accompanying support for such joinder. The Court will therefore not
require their joinder at this juncture. See Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 3:23-CV-365,
2024 WL 3043314, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2024) (denying a similarly unspecified “request
for an order requiring Plaintiff to join any other subrogated entity that has paid any
medical bills on behalf of Plaintiff’).
For all these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Join Subrogated Parties (Doc. 49) is
GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE a Second Amended
Complaint adding Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield as a party within fourteen (14)
days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By: 5 Paul Hq Z
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND