Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

AUBREY SREDNICKI, individually, and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00243
Plaintiffs,
CLASS ACTION
v.

CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; FINAL JUDGMENT;

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND
INCENTIVE AWARD; AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Aubrey Srednicki (“Srednicki”), individually and on behalf of the

Settlement Class members (together, “Plaintiffs”), as defined below, and Defendant Cigna Health

and Life Insurance Company (“Cigna”) (with Plaintiffs and Defendant collectively referred to

herein as the “Parties”), have agreed to settle the above-captioned matter (the “Action”) on the terms

and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement to this Action and all exhibits thereto;

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2023, this Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order [ECF

No. 17] that conditionally certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for settlement

purposes only, a class consisting of:

All Persons who were or are enrolled in a Plan, who received laboratory services from
LabCorp and/or Sonora Quest through Cigna HealthCare of Arizona, Inc., Cigna Medical
Group, or Health Diagnostics Laboratory, on or after October 7, 2011, and whose cost share
for such services was greater than the amount they would have owed had their cost-sharing
responsibility been based on the amount paid by Cigna HealthCare of Arizona, Inc., Cigna
Medical Group, or Health Diagnostics Laboratory to LabCorp and/or Sonora Quest for
those services (the “Settlement Class”).

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) any of Cigna’s officers or directors; (2) the

1
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 10

judicial officers to whom this case is assigned and any members of their staffs and
immediate families; (3) any heirs, assigns, or successors of any of the persons or entities
described in parts (1) and (2) of this paragraph; and (4) the persons listed on Exhibit 1
hereto who have opted out of the Settlement.

WHEREAS, in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the form and content

of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Final Approval Hearing (“Notice”) directed

to members of the Class;

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2023, Rust Consulting (the “Settlement Administrator”) caused

the Notice to be mailed to all members of the Class, which informed members of the Settlement

Class of the Settlement terms and that the Court would consider the following issues at the Final

Approval Hearing: (i) whether the Court should grant final approval to the Settlement; (ii) the

amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to be awarded to Class Counsel; (iii) whether to

approve the payment of the Incentive Award to the Class Representative and the amount of the

Incentive Award; and (iv) any objections by members of the Class to any of the above that were

timely and properly served in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order;

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2023, the Settlement Administrator also established a Settlement

website that included information about the Settlement and Class Members’ rights and options;

WHEREAS, the Settlement Administrator provided notice to the appropriate state and

federal officials under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715;

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2023, Plaintiffs moved unopposed for final approval of the

Settlement Class (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval”) and for attorneys’ fees and expenses

(the “Fee Application”);

WHEREAS, this Court finds that the papers are detailed and sufficient to rule on Plaintiffs’

Motion for Final Approval and the Fee Application on the papers; and

WHEREAS, this Court, having heard from Class Counsel on behalf of the Settlement

2
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 10

Class, and from Defendant’s Counsel, and having reviewed all other arguments and submissions

presented by all interested persons and entities with respect to the Settlement and the Fee

Application; and

WHEREAS, all capitalized terms used herein have the meanings set forth and defined in

the Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) filed at [ECF No. 5-1], it is

hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED, AND FOUND THAT:

1. This case arises out of the putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District

Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:17-cv-1693, by Lead Plaintiff Jeffrey Neufeld,

on behalf of himself and the putative class, against Cigna, on October 6, 2017 (the “Neufeld

Action”).

2. The putative class action complaint in the Neufeld Action has been amended four

times, on December 17, 2017, September 24, 2018, August 6, 2019, and March 10, 2020. As a

result of those amendments, additional Neufeld Lead Plaintiffs were added, including Srednicki.

3. Plaintiffs in the Neufeld Action allege that Cigna improperly calculated and charged

cost share to Plan Members for services provided by third party vendors CareCentrix, eviCore,

and Linkia, violated the written terms of ERISA plan documents, and misrepresented the Cost

Share based on CareCentrix’s, eviCore’s, or Linkia’s charges in explanation of benefit forms, and

that in so doing Cigna violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1000, et seq. (“ERISA”) and the other state and federal laws.

4. In the Neufeld Action, Srednicki brought ERISA claims related to laboratory

services provided through Cigna Medical Group. Srednicki alleged that Cigna HealthCare of

Arizona, Inc. or its affiliates, including Cigna Medical Group, improperly

3
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 4 of 10

calculated and charged cost share, in the form of deductible or co-insurance to Cigna plan members

for services provided through Health Diagnostic Services (the internal laboratory for Cigna

Medical Group that ceased operations in 2018, or “HDL”) and LabCorp and/or Sonora Quest (the

“Contested HDL Fees”). Srednicki further alleges that Cigna violated the written terms of ERISA

plan documents, and misrepresented the cost share based on the Contested HDL Fees in

explanation of benefit forms, and that in so doing Cigna violated the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1000, et seq. (“ERISA”) and other state and federal laws.

5. Srednicki and Cigna, by and through their Counsel, engaged in extensive settlement

negotiations and agreed to settle Srednicki’s claims related to laboratory services provided through

Cigna Medical Group in the Neufeld Action.

6. On February 8 and 9, 2023, respectively, Cigna and Srednicki executed the

Settlement Agreement.

7. On February 24, 2023, Lead Plaintiff Srednicki withdrew from the Neufeld Action

pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

8. On February 23, 2023, Srednicki filed this action, on behalf of herself and the

putative class, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:23-cv-00243

(the “Action”) pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Action asserts ERISA claims related to

laboratory services provided through Cigna Medical Group that she previously alleged in the

Neufeld Action.

9. The Settlement Agreement provides substantial and meaningful relief to the

Settlement Class, including the payment three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to Plaintiffs

pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

4
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 5 of 10

10. The Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement under which members of the

Settlement Class will receive a pro rata payment from the Total Settlement Fund based on the

difference of: (1) the aggregate amount of each member’s cost share for laboratory services

provided through Cigna HealthCare of Arizona, Inc., Cigna Medical Group, or Health Diagnostics

Laboratory; and (2) the aggregate amount of cost share for laboratory services provided through

Cigna Medical Group had cost share been calculated using the rates Cigna HealthCare of Arizona,

Inc., Cigna Medical Group, or Health Diagnostics Laboratory paid LabCorp and/or Sonora Quest.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, any claims for services that a class member may have had in which

the rates paid to LabCorp and/or Sonora Quest were greater than the rates of Cigna HealthCare of

Arizona, Inc., Cigna Medical Group, or Health Diagnostics Laboratory will be excluded from the

calculation of the pro rata payment from the Total Settlement Fund described in the preceding

sentence and there will be a minimum base distribution (before any pro rata reduction) of $5 for

each member of the Settlement Class.

11. The Settlement Class as provided in the Preliminary Approval Order is

conditionally certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for the

purposes of the Settlement only. The Court finds, in the specific context of this Settlement, that

the following requirements are met: (a) the number of Settlement Class members is in the

thousands and is so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class members is impracticable; (b)

there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class members; (c) Lead Plaintiff

Srednicki’s claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class members she seeks to represent

for purposes of this Settlement; (d) Lead Plaintiff Srednicki and Class Counsel have fairly and

adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so; (e)

prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with

5
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 6 of 10

respect to individual Settlement Class members that would establish incompatible standards of

conduct for Defendant; (f) Defendant has acted on grounds with respect to laboratory services

provided through Cigna Medical Group that apply generally to the Settlement Class, so that the

benefits provided in the Settlement Agreement are appropriate for the Settlement Class as a whole;

(g) questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class members predominate over any

questions affecting any individual Settlement Class member with respect to laboratory services

provided through Cigna Medical Group; and (h) a class action provides a fair and efficient method

for settling the controversy under the criteria set forth in Rule 23. Excluded from the Settlement

Class are those Persons who would otherwise be Settlement Class members listed in Exhibit 1

hereto, whose requests to Opt Out from the Settlement Class are hereby accepted by the Court.

A. The Court also concludes that, because the Action is being settled rather

than litigated, the Court need not consider manageability issues that might otherwise be presented

by trial of a class action involving the issues in the Action.

B. For the purposes of Settlement only, Plaintiff Aubrey Srednicki is

confirmed as the Class Representative of the Settlement Class, and Robert A. Izard, Craig A.

Raabe, and Christopher M. Barrett of Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, and William H. Narwold,

Mathew Jasinski, and Meghan Oliver of Motley Rice LLC are confirmed as Co-Lead Class

Counsel.

12. Notice to the members of the Settlement Class required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23 has been provided as directed by this Court in the Preliminary Approval Order, and

such notice having constituted the best notice practicable, including, but not limited to, the forms

of notice and methods of identifying and providing notice to the members of the Settlement Class,

6
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 7 of 10

has satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Class Action Fairness

Act of 2005, and all other applicable laws.

13. Defendant has complied with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.

§1715, et seq. Defendant, through the Settlement Administrator, timely mailed notice of the

Settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1715(b), including notices to appropriate state and federal

officials under the Class Action Fairness Act. The notice contains the documents and information

required by 28 U.S.C. §1715(b)(1)-(8). The Court finds that Defendant has complied in all respects

with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1715.

14. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Court hereby fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement

Agreement in all respects, and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,

adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs and Defendant are directed to

promptly consummate the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and all of its

terms.

15. The Settlement shall not be deemed to constitute an admission or finding of liability

or wrongdoing or breach of any duty or a concession that a class action could be certified in other

contexts, such as the Neufeld Action, on the part of Cigna or the Released Parties.

16. The Action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, on the merits, as against the

Defendant, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and without costs

to any party except as provided herein and in the Settlement Agreement.

17. Plaintiffs, each Settlement Class member, and each Releasing Party who are not

listed in Exhibit 1 shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Final Approval Order and

Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released

7
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 8 of 10

Claims against the Released Parties in the manner(s) set forth in Section 6 of the Settlement

Agreement.

18. Plaintiffs, each Settlement Class member, and each Releasing Party who are not

listed in Exhibit 1 are forever barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or

continuing to prosecute any action or other proceeding in any court of law or equity, arbitration

tribunal, or administrative forum, asserting the Released Claims against any of the Released

Parties.

19. An Incentive Award is hereby awarded to the Class Representative in the amount

of $7,500.00, to be deducted from the Total Settlement Fund.

20. Class Counsel are hereby awarded a total of $110,000.00 as a combined award for

both attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses, to be deducted

from the Total Settlement Fund.

21. The award of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel shall be allocated among Class

Counsel in a fashion that Co-Lead Class Counsel in good faith believes reflects the contributions

of Class Counsel to the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the Srednicki Action.

22. In making its award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, in the

amounts described in paragraph 20 above, the Court has considered and finds as follows:

a. The Settlement has provided significant relief to the Settlement Class;

b. The Notice and Summary Notice constituted the best notice practicable to

Settlement Class members consistent with the requirements of due process;

c. The Action involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of

the Settlement, would involve further lengthy proceedings and uncertain

resolution of such issues;

8
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 9 of 10

d. Had the Settlement not been achieved, there would remain a significant risk

that the Settlement Class may have recovered less or nothing from

Defendant, and that any recovery would have been significantly delayed;

and

e. The amount of attorneys’ fees and reimbursable expenses awarded to Class

Counsel, the Incentive Award awarded to the Class Representative, and the

Plan of Allocation are fair and reasonable.

23. Defendant and the Released Parties shall not be liable for any additional fees or

expenses for Class Counsel or counsel of any Plaintiffs or Settlement Class members in connection

with the Action, beyond those expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement.

24. Any appeal or challenge affecting the approval of: (a) the Plan of Allocation and/or

(b) this Court’s approval regarding any attorneys’ fees, expenses, or Service Awards shall in no

way disturb or affect the finality of the other provisions of this Judgment nor the Effective date of

the Settlement.

25. By reason of the Settlement, and approval hereof, there is no just reason for delay

and this Final Order and Judgment shall be deemed a final judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

26. Jurisdiction is reserved, without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order

and Judgment, over:

a. Effectuating the Settlement and the terms of the Settlement Agreement,

including the payment of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees and

reimbursement of expenses, including any interest accrued thereon;

b. Supervising all aspects of the administration of the Settlement;

9
Case 3:23-cv-00243-KAD Document 37 Filed 07/10/23 Page 10 of 10

c. Determining whether, in the event an appeal is taken from any aspect of this

Final Approval Order and Judgment, notice should be given at the

appellant’s expense to some or all Settlement Class members apprising

them of the pendency of the appeal and such other matters as the Court may

order;

d. Enforcing and administering the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement,

including any releases executed in connection therewith, and the provisions

of this Final Approval Order and Judgment;

e. Adjudicating any disputes that arise under the Settlement Agreement; and

f. Any other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.

27. The above-captioned Action is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 10th day of July 2023.

/s/ Kari A. Dooley

KARI A. DOOLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10