LYNN, Judge.
On January 9, 2002, Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Texas and Permanente Medical Association of Texas filed a Motion to Reconsider Kaiser's First Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement. On January 23, 2002, Defendants Texas Health Choice, L.C., TexMed Physicians, P.A., f/k/a The Medical Group of Texas, P.A., and Sierra Health Services filed their Motion to Reconsider. Having considered the Motions, the Court is of the opinion that the Motions to Reconsider should be DENIED, but Defendants Kaiser and Permanente's Motion for a More Definite Statement should be GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to submit, by March 15, 2002, a Fourth Amended Complaint that specifies which Defendants are implicated in each claim. Plaintiff must also make clear whether the allegedly substandard medical treatment Mr. Erwin began receiving from Defendants' agents "in or around late 1998" commenced before or after HMO Texas's October 31, 1998 asset purchase of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Texas and Permanente Association of Texas.
Moreover, Plaintiff must also specify the following in regard to each claim:
For the Chapter 88 claim, Plaintiff must specify whether she is invoking the liability provisions of 88.002(a) or (b). Plaintiff must also specify in greater detail what "quality of care" decisions she is referring to in paragraph 17(b) and (c) of that cause of action, which, along with paragraph 17(a), constitute the only non-ERISA preempted allegations contained within that claim. For example, Plaintiff must specify whether the quality of care decisions relate to Defendants' refusal to cover Defendants' liver transplant, or whether the decisions relate instead to Defendants' and/or their employees' failure, as health care providers, to provide some service covered by Mr. Erwin's ERISA plan.
In regard to Plaintiff's vicarious liability claim, Plaintiff must specify which Defendants are allegedly liable for the negligence of Mr. Erwin's treating doctors, and whether the alleged negligence relates to the doctors' refusal to perform Defendants' liver transplant because the transplant was not covered by Mr. Erwin's health plan, or whether the alleged negligence of the doctors instead relates to the doctors' failure to provide some medically necessary service covered by Mr. Erwin's health care plan.
In reference to the negligence claim, Plaintiff must specify in greater detail how Defendants "breached the standard of care for similar medical care in Dallas, Texas, and in the nation at the time in question." As with the other claims above, Plaintiff must state which Defendants breached the standard of care and whether those Defendants did so by refusing to cover the liver transplant, or whether instead Defendants breached the standard by not performing another service that was covered by Mr. Erwin's health plan.
For Plaintiff's conspiracy claim, Plaintiff must explain not only which Defendants are allegedly involved in the conspiracy, but also how they "negligently or fraudulently delay[ed] or den[ied] necessary treatment to Mr. Erwin." Plaintiff must state whether Defendants' conspiracy to delay or deny treatment relates to Defendants' refusal to cover the liver transplant, or whether the conspiracy instead relates to Defendants' and/or their employees' failure to perform some medically necessary service covered by Mr. Erwin's health plan.
These changes are the only ones Plaintiff may make in her Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court will allow Defendants to submit renewed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings in regard to these claims within 20 days of the date of filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint.
SO ORDERED