Wellpoint Class Action

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:52 +0000

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is a law governing what is and is not legal in the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds, and debentures). The Act, 48 Stat. 881 (June 6, 1934), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq., was a sweeping piece of legislation. The Act and related statutes form the basis of regulation of the financial markets and their participants in the United States. It is commonly referred to as the "Exchange Act" , the "'34 Act", and the "Act of '34". Companies raise billions of dollars by issuing securities in what is known as the primary market. Contrasted with the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates these original issues, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regulates the secondary trading of those securities between persons often unrelated to the issuer. Trillions of dollars are made and lost each year through trading in the secondary market. While the '33 Act contains an antifraud provision (Section 17), when the '34 Act was enacted, questions remained about the reach of that antifraud provision and whether a private right of action existed for purchasers (meaning that ordinary people, and not just the government, could maintain a lawsuit against the bad actor). As it developed, section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 have sweeping antifraud language. Section 10(b) of the Act (as amended) provides (in part): It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Section 10(b) is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). It's hard to overstate the breadth and utility of section 10(b,) and Rule 10b-5, in the pursuit of securities litigation. Rule 10b-5 has been employed to cover insider trading cases, but has also been used against companies for price fixing (artificially inflating or depressing stock prices through stock manipulation), bogus company sales to increase stock price, and even a company's failure to communicate relevant information to investors. Many plaintiffs in the securities litigation field plead violations of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 as a "catchall" allegation, in addition to violations of the more specific antifraud provisions in the '34 Act. Source: Wikipedia Other links: Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Class Action Filed by Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:08:58 +0000

RADNOR, Pa., 4/22/2008 -- The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler : Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all purchasers of securities of WellPoint, Inc . WLP ("WellPoint" or the "Company") from January 23, 2008 through March 10, 2008, inclusive ( the "Class Period" ). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler , LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com . The Complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . WellPoint is the largest health benefits company in terms of commercial membership in the United States. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's medical costs were rising drastically, while at the same time the Company's reserves for medical costs were understated; (2) that the Company's growth in enrollment was in the less profitable sectors, such as self-funded members and products, and that the Company was not achieving sufficient new enrollment of Fully Insured Members; (3) that the Company's geographic diversity was not able to neutralize the adverse economic factors affecting the Company; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On March 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it reduced its full year 2008 growth guidance from 15.3% to between 4% and 8% and stated that this would only occur if net realized gains were about $0.06 per share. Additionally, the Company decreased its first quarter 2008 guidance from $1.44 per share to between $1.16 and $1.26 per share, assuming net realized investment gain of $0.06 per share. The Company admitted that it had incurred higher than expected medical costs and lower than expected Fully Insured enrollment. The Company also blamed is troubles on a changing economic environment. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $18.66 per share, or 28.31 percent, to close on March 11, 2008 at $47.26 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.sbtklaw.com If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than May 19, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff , the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. CONTACT: Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 Or by e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com

Liner Yankelevitz Investigates Claims Related to WellPoint's 401(k)

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:34:38 +0000

LOS ANGELES, April 16, 2008 -- Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP ("LYS&R") has commenced an investigation relating to WellPoint, Inc. ("WellPoint" or the "Company") and potential violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation focuses on investments in WellPoint by the WellPoint, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"). LYS&R's investigation focuses on concerns that WellPoint and the Plan's fiduciaries may have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to the Plan's participants. A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to prudently manage the Plan's assets, by among other things, offering WellPoint stock as a Plan investment option, requiring participants to invest in the stock, and investing and holding Company contributions in the stock at a time when the stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment option. A breach also may have occurred if the fiduciaries withheld or concealed material information from the Plan's participants with respect to the Company's business, financial results, and operations, thereby encouraging participants and beneficiaries to continue to make and maintain substantial investments of Company stock in the Plan. If you are a member of the WellPoint, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and would like to discuss this matter or provide information relevant to our investigation, you may contact any member of our team toll free at (866) 620-6722, or via e-mail at classaction@linerlaw.com. Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP is one of America's leading law firms handling ERISA retirement plan litigation. Our attorneys helped pioneer this field in the Rite-Aid and McKesson ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases, among the first large-scale ERISA 401(k) cases filed. Visit our website at www.californiaclassaction.com. CONTACT: Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP Media Contact: Laura Shovlowsky (310) 500-3407 401K Participant Contact: Ronald Kravitz (866) 620-6722 classaction@linerlaw.com www.californiaclassaction.com

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has been investigating WellPoint, Inc.

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:47:23 +0000

New York – March 25, 2008 – Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has been investigating WellPoint, Inc. (“WellPoint” or the “Company”) (NYSE: WLP) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased WellPoint common stock between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008 (“Class Period”) may be affected. A complaint has been filed against WellPoint that alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint ’s medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In addition, the defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint’s common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26 per share, on volume of more than 54 million shares traded, many times the average daily trading volume for WellPoint common stock. If you purchased WellPoint common stock and would like to discuss our investigation, please e-mail us at mail@kaplanfox.com or contact: Frederic S. Fox Joel B. Strauss Donald R. Hall Jeffrey P. Campisi KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 (800) 290-1952 (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com Laurence D. King KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707 E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:44:16 +0000

BENSALEM, Pa., April 7, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that it is investigating claims against WellPoint, Inc. ( "WellPoint" or the "Company")(NYSE: WLP) concerning whether the WellPoint Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") imprudently invested in WellPoint stock and whether the Plan's administrators breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The investigation concerns whether WellPoint and other administrators of the Plan failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investments in WellPoint, Inc. stock by continuing to offer Company stock when the stock was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. If you are a current or former employee who participated in, or continues to participate in, the WellPoint Retirement Savings Plan and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888) 638-4847 , or by email to howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.

WellPoint Customer Information Exposed

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:28:09 +0000

April 08, 2008: 06:17 PM EST NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Personal information that may have included Social Security numbers and pharmacy or medical data for about 128,000 WellPoint Inc. customers in several states was exposed online over the past year, the health insurer said Tuesday. WellPoint, which has had other data security issues in the past, recently learned about the problem, fixed it and is notifying customers, spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said. The nation's largest health insurer by membership is offering free credit-monitoring services for those customers, but has received no reports of identity theft or credit fraud. The latest security lapse stems from two servers maintained by an outside vendor that Troughton declined to identify. The vendor specializes in data management. WellPoint had learned early last year that a server was improperly secured, and that information on about 1,350 customers may have been exposed online and was vulnerable to Internet search engines. The insurer fixed that breach quickly, Troughton said. But the company recently learned that a second server had problems which exposed information for more than 128,000 customers to Internet access for about a year. That data had some code protection and couldn't be found by people using search engines. That problem has been corrected, Troughton said, and the company is working with experts to improve its security. It is still using the same vendor. "We're constantly working to fortify and bolster our security," she said. WellPoint ran into security problems in October 2006, when someone stole back-up computer tapes containing the personal information of nearly 200,000 members from the office of a Massachusetts vendor. Last year, a compact disc containing unprotected personal data for 75,000 customers went missing while it was being shipped between vendors working for WellPoint subsidiary Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. The disc was recovered. Such problems aren't limited to WellPoint. More than 225 million records for U.S. residents have been exposed due to security problems since 2005, according to the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A National Institutes of Health laptop computer containing medical information on 3,000 patients was stolen in late February. Still, a security breach involving nearly 130,000 customers raises significant concerns, said Paul Stephens, the director of policy and advocacy at Privacy Rights. "Health information is among the most personal sort of information," he said. U.S. representatives Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, both Democrats, have introduced a bill in Congress that would establish health information privacy and security standards. "We would say there should be a strong federal law that would ensure that there are minimum standards built into these systems when it comes to privacy security and confidentiality," said Mark Bayer, Markey's deputy chief of staff. Source: CNN

WellPoint Spent $1.5M to Lobby in 2007

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:50:18 +0000

Health insurer WellPoint Inc. spent $1.5 million in 2007 to lobby on funding for Medicare Advantage and the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, among other issues. The Indianapolis-based company spent $740,000 in the second half of 2007 to lobby the federal government, according to a disclosure form posted online Feb. 14 by the Senate's public records office. WellPoint also lobbied on issues related to industrial banks, which may be owned by commercial companies and provide some financial services. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. approved WellPoint's application to open an industrial bank in September. The company lobbied on a range of bills related to health insurance and Medicare. In addition, WellPoint lobbied on legislation promoting the use of information technology in the health care industry and bills that would allow for similar, or "follow-on," versions of biotech drugs. WellPoint spent $740,000 in the first six months of 2007 to lobby on many of the same issues. Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995. Source: Forbes

Wellpoint to stop select reimbursements

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:36:38 +0000

Health insurer WellPoint Inc. will start making hospitals pay for certain medical mistakes by cutting off reimbursement. The insurer announced Wednesday it will not cover costs tied to three major medical errors, so-called "never events" like surgery on the wrong body part. It also may withhold payment for expenses tied to eight other problems triggered by hospital care, including bedsores or infections from a catheter. WellPoint , the nation's largest health insurer with nearly 35 million members, is the latest payer to crack down on medical mistakes. The federal insurer Medicare has said bedsores and other preventable injuries will affect the level of reimbursement it provides. Aetna announced several weeks ago it would no longer pay for "never events," a list of 28 serious and rare medical errors devised by the nonprofit National Quality Forum. Never events are mistakes that should never happen to patients, according to the forum. WellPoint devised its list to spur improvement in U.S. hospital care, which is "not as high as it needs to be," according to Dr. Sam Nussbaum, the company's chief medical officer. "It does not parallel the breathtaking advances in sciences and medicine that we know can make a difference in peoples lives," he said. The insurer will cut off payment if surgery is done on the wrong patient or body part or if the wrong surgery is performed. It also may withhold payments tied to a host of other, more common problems. For instance, WellPoint may deny reimbursement for costs related to an infection caused by a catheter that was not changed frequently enough. If WellPoint withholds payment, the hospitals -- not the patients -- would have to absorb the cost. "All of our contracts say the patient cannot be billed if our review and assessment says that it was not medically appropriate," Nussbaum said. WellPoint put 11 items on its initial quality checklist, but the insurer may expand that as the program develops. It tied the mistakes to reimbursement to ensure the problems receive proper attention from hospital administrators. "We just want to make sure this gets the absolute full attention it deserves because at the end of the day peoples lives are at risk," Nussbaum said. Mistakes have already grabbed the attention of hospital executives, according to the American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 U.S. hospitals. WellPoint's program seems to parallel what the association has already asked hospitals to do, said Nancy Foster, its vice president for quality and patient safety. Shares of Wellpoint fell 43 cents to $45.98 Wednesday. Source: BusinessWeek

Thank you

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:50:28 +0000

Thank you for your submission! Someone will return to you shortly

Privacy

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:36:41 +0000

This web site is committed to protecting the privacy of Internet users. Below is information outlining our continued support for the responsible management of consumer information. Consumer Information During the process of delivering our content and information to you, we do not automatically collect any personally identifiable information about you such as name, address, phone number, or e-mail address. However, we do obtain some types of non-personally identifiable information such as the Internet Service Provider you use to connect to the Internet, your browser type, or the type of computer operating system you use (Macintosh or Windows, for example). The information collected by us is used for the purpose of analyzing our traffic and sometimes for targeting ads. In some cases, you may voluntarily provide personal information in order to register for our newsletters, to submit a question on the Knowledge Base, or to use the password protected areas or in response to a specific ad. This information is used by us to respond to your request. We may at times combine this information with other users' information and review it in an aggregate form to understand the type of individuals who visit our website. We will not disclose your personal information to third parties without your permission except in the following circumstances: i) to protect ourselves from liability; ii) to respond to a legal process or comply with the law; or iii) in a limited number of jurisdictions and legal fields, to have your case reviewed for free by a law firm that practices in the area of law of your case. Nothing transmitted to or from this website constitutes the establishment of an attorney-client relationship between you and any attorney. Cookies Our site, as well as most sites on the Internet, use "cookies" to enhance your experience on the web. Generally, we cannot use these cookies to personally identify you in any way. The only time we can use cookies to personally identify you, is when you use the password protected areas of our site and you chose to enable cookie identification. Basically, we use cookies to allow you to enjoy our site more and to make your visit to our site easier. While we believe that cookies enhance your Internet experience, they are not required to use our site. If you do not want the benefit of cookies, there is a simple procedure to manually delete your cookies. Please consult your web browser's Help documentation for more information. Opting Out If at any time you no longer wish to receive the information you originally requested to receive from us, please contact us and we will remove your information from our system. If you have any additional questions about our dedication to consumer privacy, please contact us . Third Party Ads At times WellpointClassAction.com works with third parties that serve ads to and on this site. Some of these third parties may also use cookies in conjunction with their ads. WellpointClassAction.com may also work with advertisers who may collect information that you would voluntarily provide to them. Please refer to those advertisers individual privacy policies for information on how they manage the privacy of information .

Disclaimer

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:27:21 +0000

The information contained on the WellpointClassAction.com web site is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or an offer to perform services on any subject matter. The content of this Web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient's state. WellpointClassAction.com expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken by the recipient based on any or all of the information or other contents of this site. Any information sent to WellpointClassAction.com via Internet e-mail or through the Web site is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. WellpointClassAction.com is not a law firm . It is a free service to submit your case on this website. WellpointClassAction.com . provides a paid, joint advertising campaign for lawyers, and is not a lawyer referral service. The transmission of the WellpointClassAction.com site in part or in whole, and/or communication with WellpointClassAction.com via Internet e-mail through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between any recipients. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. WellpointClassAction.com does not endorse, and is not responsible for, any third-party content that may be accessed through this Web site. COPYRIGHT Copyright © 2008 WellpointClassAction.com. All rights reserved. All materials presented on this site are copyrighted and owned by WellpointClassAction.com. NO REPRESENTATIONS This material may contain technical or typographical errors. WellpointClassAction.com does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness or suitability. IN NO EVENT SHALL WELLPOINTCLASSACTION.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATING TO THIS MATERIAL, FOR ANY USE OF THIS WEBSITE, OR FOR ANY OTHER HYPERLINKED WEBSITE. WellpointClassAction.com. takes no responsibility and makes no warranty whatsoever for the content or information contained on sites linked to or from this site. All such links are provided on this Web site solely for the convenience of users and do not represent any endorsement, advertisement or sponsorship of linked sites or any products or services offered.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Announces Shareholder Class Action Against WellPoint, Inc.

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:32:27 +0000

ATLANTA,GA 03/26/2008 - A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against WellPoint, Inc. ("WellPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:WLP - News) and various individuals on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008 (the "Relevant Period"). The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it issued false and misleading statements to the public concerning medical costs and medical enrollment levels. The lawsuit also alleges the Company misrepresented its future earnings potential. Purchasers of WellPoint common stock with questions concerning their legal rights are invited to contact Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC and its attorneys Corey D. Holzer, Esq., Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, mfistel@holzerlaw.com , or mdees@holzerlaw.com , or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon request from the firm. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D. Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

Brower Piven Filed Class Action Against WellPoint, Inc.

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:06:04 +0000

BALTIMORE, MD 03/23/08 Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc . ( "WellPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: WLP) between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain of its officers and/or directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may, no later than May 19, 2008, ask the Court to allow you to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. To serve as a lead plaintiff, you must satisfy certain legal requirements. In making your decision, you should take into account that those with large financial losses resulting from the alleged federal securities law violations are given preference in being appointed lead plaintiff. If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in WellPoint securities during the Class Period (including shares or calls purchased during, but retained after, the Class Period or put options sold but not covered until after the Class Period), you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven (without obligation or cost to you) at www.browerpiven.com , by email at hoffman@ browerpiven.com, by calling 410-986-0036, or at Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience in securities and class action litigation of over 40 years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven , or you may retain other counsel of your choice. CONTACT: Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation Baltimore, Maryland Charles J. Piven 410/986-0036 hoffman@browerpiven.com Download PDF

Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Filed a Class Action Suit Against WellPoint, Inc

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:36:57 +0000

PHILADELPHIA, 03/19/2008 Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc .("WellPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:WLP) between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending before the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 19, 2008. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com . Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in the United States. Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint 's medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In addition, based on these false and misleading statements of current fact, defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold $6.6 million worth of WellPoint stock. In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve. WellPoint 's membership growth was weighted more towards the less profitable self-funded products and enrollment in fully insured products was down. As a result of these known facts at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided earnings guidance which they knew WellPoint would not be able to achieve. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint 's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26, on volume of more than 54 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of WellPoint (NYSE:WLP) between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008. The plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. . The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com

Wellpoint

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:07:56 +0000

January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008 The Complaint charges that WellPoint, a health benefits company, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26 per share

Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against WellPoint

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:50:38 +0000

HARTFORD, Conn., 03/18/2008 The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. , which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of WellPoint , Inc. ("WellPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:WLP) between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that WellPoint, a health benefits company, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26 per share. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 19, 2008, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members. While Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, class action cases in general, and your rights, please contact Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. toll-free at (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail at firm@snilaw.com , or visit our website: www.snilaw.com . CONTACT: Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. Wayne T. Boulton Nancy A. Kulesa (800) 797-5499 firm@snilaw.com www.snilaw.com

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Files Class Action against WellPoint, Inc.

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:26:26 +0000

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) today (3/18/2008) announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of WellPoint, Inc. (“Wellpoint”) (NYSE:WLP) common stock during the period between January 23, 2008 and March 10, 2008 (the “Class Period”). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com . If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online . Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WellPoint describes itself as the largest health benefits company in terms of commercial membership in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint’s medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint’s common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26 per share, on volume of more than 54 million shares traded, many times the average daily trading volume for WellPoint common stock. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Wellpoint common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Coughlin Stoia , a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site has more information about the firm. Contact: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Samuel H. Rudman, 800-449-4900 or David A. Rosenfeld djr@csgrr.com

Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced Class Action against WellPoint Inc

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:46:43 +0000

PHILADELPHIA, 03/19/2008 The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc . ("WellPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:WLP) between January 23, 2008 through March 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors ("Defendants") with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in the United States. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements including failing to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In this regard, Defendants misled the market by, inter alia, issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold $6.6 million worth of his WellPoint stock. In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve. Moreover, WellPoint 's membership growth was weighted more towards the less profitable self-funded products and enrollment in fully insured products was down. As a result of these known facts at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided earnings guidance which they knew the Company would not be able to achieve. When defendants disclosed the truth on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint 's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26 , on volume of more than 54 million shares. If you purchased WellPoint securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than May 19, 2008, move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative, chosen by the Court, that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 directs Courts to assume that the class member(s) with the "largest financial interest" in the outcome of the case will best serve the class in this capacity. Courts have discretion in determining which class member(s) have the "largest financial interest," and have appointed Lead Plaintiffs with substantial losses in both absolute terms and as a percentage of their net worth. If you have sustained substantial losses in WellPoint securities during the Class Period, please contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., at classaction@srk-law.com for a more thorough explanation of the Lead Plaintiff selection process. If you have relatively small losses, your ability to participate in any recovery will be protected by the Lead Plaintiff(s), and you need take no affirmative steps at this time. If you wish to join this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman or David Felderman toll-free at 888-844-5862 or via E-mail at classaction@srk-law.com . For more detailed information about the firm please visit its website at http://www.srk-law.com . Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, concentrates its practice in complex litigation including actions dealing with securities laws, antitrust, contract and commercial claims. The firm is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. The firm's reputation for excellence has been recognized on repeated occasions by courts which have appointed the firm as lead counsel in numerous major class actions involving violations of the federal securities laws and the federal antitrust laws, and consumer fraud. As a result of the efforts of the firm, and its members, hundreds of millions of dollars have been recovered through judgments and settlements on behalf of thousands of defrauded shareholders and companies.

Overtime Lawsuit

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:24:41 +0000

Insurer WellPoint Inc. faces a lawsuit charging that it failed to pay overtime to former and current nurses in violation of state and federal labor laws. Nurses performing utilization review, case management or medical management functions in Indianapolis-based WellPoint’s call centers regularly worked more than 40 hours without overtime compensation, according to the complaint, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. By failing to properly document and compensate the nurses for overtime work, the insurer violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the suit, which seeks class action status. The company also allegedly violated the New York Labor Law, which requires employers to pay overtime compensation to all nonexempt employees. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the practices are unlawful, an injunction to prevent further violations, damages, costs and attorney fees. Rachhana Srey, an attorney at Nichols, Kaster & Anderson P.L.L.P. in Minneapolis who is representing the nurses, said the firm does not yet have an estimate of national class members and total damages. At least 100 current and former employees of WellPoint located in New York would be part of the proposed class, and damages for this group are estimated to exceed $5 million, according to the complaint. (Source)

Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.)

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:53:24 +0000

Summary: In December 2005, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On January 31, 2006, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Money Damages And For Injunctive And Other Equitable Relief was filed. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of former members of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. ("Anthem Insurance") who received cash compensation in or about December 2001 when Anthem Insurance converted from a mutual to a stock insurance company. The conversion took place on November 2, 2001. The class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Indiana statutes, breach of fiduciary duty and contract, unjust enrichment and negligence. Specifically, the suit alleges Defendants made material misrepresentations and omitted material facts in documents sent to members who approved the conversion. To raise the cash needed to compensate former members for their interests, Anthem stock was sold in an initial public offering ("IPO") on October 30, 2001. Defendants reduced the price at which the IPO shares would be offered in order to sell almost twice as many shares as had been represented would be sold, thus raising almost twice as much cash. Defendants then allegedly took advantage of the cash compensation default mechanism in the Plan of Conversion and prevented hundreds of thousands of members from becoming Anthem shareholders. Defendants allegedly devised the scheme to save costs and avoid complexities associated with a large shareholder population. Since the cash compensation paid to former members was tied to the allegedly depressed IPO share price, all former members who were paid cash are alleged to have received inadequate compensation. In addition, Anthem and Anthem Insurance allegedly misinformed former members that the entire cash compensation was taxable capital gain income. COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Anthem, Inc. COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: WLP COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.anthem.com FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE Daniel J. Cescato, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al. COURT: N.D. Ohio DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-02004 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dan Aaron Polster DATE FILED: 08/16/2005 SOURCE: Notice of Filing CLASS PERIOD START: 11/02/2001 CLASS PERIOD END: 11/02/2001 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE: # Dennis P. Barron P.O. Box 8190, Cincinnati, OH, 45208 (voice) (513) 871-2369, (fax) (513) 871-2369, dennispbarron@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1 DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Money Damages And For Injunctive And Other Equitable Relief Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/31/2006 Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Counsel Type: Order Date on the document: 06/16/2006 U.S. District Court Civil Docket Type: Docket Date on the document: 06/16/2006 Info source: http://securities.stanford.edu/1035/WLP_01/

Database Security Breach Notification Act (CA SB 1386)

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:12:14 +0000

California SB 1386 became effective in on 1st July 2003, amending civil codes 1798.29, 1798.82 and 1798.84.. It is a serious bill, with far reaching implications. Essentially, it requires an agency, person or business that conducts business in California and owns or licenses computerized 'personal information' to disclose any breach of security (to any resident whose unencrypted data is believed to have been disclosed). The bill mandates various mechanisms and procedures with respect to many aspects of this scenario, subject also to other defined provisions. SB 1386 is a California law regulating the privacy of personal information. The law was introduced by California State Senator Peace on February 12, 2002, and became operative July 1, 2003. ABSTRACT: Enactment of a requirement for notification to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The statute went into effect July 1, 2003, under California Civil Code Section 1798.29, and requires notification to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. Frequently asked questions: Q: Can you tell me if this means an out of state corporation must notify a CA resident if their info is compromised, even if they have no nexus with CA? The statute requires notification if you meet the following: (1) Any agency that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information (2) shall disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data (3) to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. My read is that any out of state corporation that has personal information relating to a California resident would fall under this statute. A question on minimum contacts would then ensue as to whether an action may be brought in California to enforce the California resident's rights under the statute. Q: How can the corporations determine whether they are subject to this statute? (1) Does their data include "personal information" as defined by the statute? (2) Does that "personal information" relate to a California resident? (3) Was the "personal information" unencrypted? (4) Was there a "breach of the security" of the data as defined by the statute? (5) Was the "personal information" acquired, or is reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person? If you answer yes to all five of these questions then you must report. The statute does not apply to "encrypted" information. Thus one way to avoid reporting is to encrypt all "personal information." You can also avoid reporting if your data does not contain "personal information" relating to a California resident. Text of CB 1386 Since the state of California passed the Database Security Breach Notification Act (SB 1386) in 2003 another 34 states have passed similar legislation with more set to follow.

5.14.2007 Insurance fraud ends in a $1 million fine by the California Department of Managed Health C

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:29:53 +0000

San Francisco, CA: The state brought charges against Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.'s subsidiary in California, Blue Cross, alleging that the insurer retroactively canceled health insurance policies of more than 6,000 policyholders. For decades, insurers have canceled a small percentage of policies when they found mistakes or omissions on application forms completed by policyholders. Insurers defend the practice, called rescission, as a check against fraud. The class action suit ended in a settlement where Blue Cross pledged not to retroactively cancel coverage unless policyholders intentionally misrepresented information on their applications, and to make sharp changes in its practices. It was fined $1 million by the California Department of Managed Health Care. 5.14.2007

WellPoint Sued for Illegal Practices

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:27:05 +0000

Los Angeles, CA: WellPoint, Inc. and its subsidiaries are facing a class action suit for canceling insurance coverage even after they had authorized medical procedures, leaving patients to pay for their medical expenses. Defendants named in the suit are WellPoint, Inc., Blue Cross of California, and Blue Cross Life and Health. According to the suit, WellPoint and its subsidiaries regularly violated California state law by retroactively rescinding patients' insurance coverage in order to avoid paying expensive claims, even after the insurance carriers had authorized the medical procedures. Plaintiffs contend that this violates California law which prohibits insurance companies from refusing to pay medical bills when hospital services have been provided based on the authorization of the insurance carrier. The suit also argues that when claims reach a certain dollar maximum, the insurance carriers review the patient's medical records and look for reasons to revoke the policy, including "any discrepancies in the member's application, no matter how vague or irrelevant." This leaves sick patients with massive medical bills that many cannot afford to fully pay, including bills for costly medical problems. A spokesperson for the California Hospital Association said insurance payment denials add to the financial strain on hospitals and are ultimately passed on to other patients, taxpayers, investors and lenders. Unfortunately, hospitals may never know how much money they've lost to retroactively rescinded policies because the WellPoint subsidiaries rarely give an explanation for denying patients' claims. The hospitals may not be informed as to whether or not a policy has been retroactively rescinded. Spokespeople for the insurance carriers claim that the cancellations are necessary in order to prevent fraud. However consumer advocates argue that in some cases insurance was cancelled as a way to avoid paying for expensive claims. The class action lawsuit was filed October 13 on behalf of all California hospitals and seeks payment for all treatment that WellPoint and Blue Cross authorized and then rescinded in the past four years. The suit also seeks interest and punitive damages and asks the court to order the insurance companies to cease the illegal practice. This class action follows a recent $200,000 fine to Blue Cross stemming from improperly rescinding a patient's coverage. In that case, Blue Cross illegally cancelled the patient's coverage claiming that she knowingly withheld information about corrective surgery she had 23 years earlier. Furthermore, individual policy holders have also filed suit against WellPoint and its subsidiaries claiming their insurance was illegally revoked after they required treatment. WellPoint, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Cross Life and Health must pay for care they have authorized, regardless of whether or not coverage is later revoked. Illegally canceling policies leaves sick patients with bills that they cannot afford to pay. November 1, 2006. By Heidi Turner

Can one sell his/her stock in the company being sued in a securities class action and still be a cla

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:15:47 +0000

Yes, the stock can be sold. It is not necessary to retain ownership after the class period has expired to participate in the lawsuit.

How are plaintiffs' attorneys paid in class action cases?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:13:24 +0000

The Plaintiffs' attorneys are paid out of the common settlement fund in accordance with an order from the court in which the case is pending, and only if the case is successful.

What happens if one does not apply to be appointed as a lead plaintiff?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:11:49 +0000

Anyone who purchased securities during the class period and sustained losses are automatically part of the class action and are entitled to share in any judgment or settlement obtained on behalf of the class.

What are the advantages of being a lead plaintiff?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:07:28 +0000

Advantages A Lead Plaintiff can communicate with the lawyers about the progress of the case and may have the right to influence the lawyers and, thus, the outcome of the case. Disadventages A Lead Plaintiff will probably be required to offer testimony at a deposition, describing how the "lead plaintiff" was harmed.

When can one apply to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in a securities class action?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:04:13 +0000

Anyone who is a member of a securities class can apply to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff within sixty days after a notice of the first class action has been published.

What is a lead plaintiff in a securities class action?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:01:35 +0000

A Lead Plaintiff is one or more persons appointed by the court to act as the representative of the class

What is a class period?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:00:13 +0000

The Class Period is the period of time during which the alleged fraud, wrongdoing or securities law violations artificially inflated the price of the stock or security at issue or otherwise caused losses.

What is a securities class action

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:58:56 +0000

A Securities Class Action is typically brought on behalf of all people who purchased or acquired the stock or other security of a publicly traded company during the period of artificial market price inflation (the "Class Period").

What is a class action?

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:57:27 +0000

A Class Action is a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of many people who have been harmed in a similar manner. A class action cannot be prosecuted unless at least one person harmed by the conduct is willing to serve as a class representative (Lead Plaintiff).

Wellpoint Settles Lawsuits with Physicians and Medical Societies

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:38:26 +0000

On July 11, 2005, counsel for approximately 900,000 physicians and WellPoint, Inc., announced that they have settled two national class actions pending in federal court for the Southern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno as well as multiple state court actions filed against the company. WellPoint is the fourth company named as a Defendant in the Managed Care Litigation in Florida to settle with physicians. The agreement includes the resolution of two national lawsuits against both pre-merger companies, WellPoint Health Networks Inc. and Anthem, Inc. (“WellPoint”) and includes substantial commitments by WellPoint to institute a significant number of business practice changes that will benefit physicians. This agreement includes industry-leading improvements to physician-related business practices. The cornerstone of these business practices is WellPoint’s agreement to apply generally accepted medical standards. Additionally, WellPoint has committed to increase transparency in paying claims and has agreed to an enforcement mechanism to help ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement. The business practice changes and transparency add significant value to physicians in terms of ensuring reduced overhead and greater focus on patient care. The agreement will also streamline communication between physicians and WellPoint, reduce administrative complexity in the claims payment system and help to improve the quality of the health care system in general. If approved by the court, the agreement would conclude this lawsuit against WellPoint as part of on-going multi-district litigation currently pending against many of the nation’s largest for-profit health insurers and which is scheduled for trial on January 23, 2006. The settlement also includes a payment of $135 million to a settlement fund for payments to physicians and $5 million to a non-profit foundation devoted to better health care. The total value of the business practice changes is hundreds of millions of dollars. Key Aspects of Settlement In addition to the monetary component of the settlement, physicians and WellPoint have agreed to new levels of transparency and communication as well as a renewed commitment concerning business practices through a number of initiatives. In the agreement, WellPoint has agreed to, among other things: A definition of medical necessity that ensures that patients are entitled to receive medically necessary care as determined by a physician exercising clinically prudent judgment in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice; Use of clinical guidelines that are based on credible scientific evidence published in peer reviewed medical literature (taking into account Physician Specialty Society recommendations, the views of Physicians practicing in the relevant clinical areas, and other relevant factors) when making medical necessity determinations; Provide physicians with access to an independent medical necessity external review process; Establish an independent external review board for resolving disputes with physicians concerning many common billing disputes; Pay for the cost of recommended vaccines and injectibles and for the administration of such vaccines and injectibles; Not automatically reduce the intensity coding of evaluation and management codes billed for covered services; Ensure the payment of valid clean claims within fifteen (15) days for electronically-submitted claims and thirty (30) days for paper claims; Provide fee schedules via electronic communication; Establish a compliance dispute resolution mechanism to address disputes regarding WellPoint 's compliance with the agreement; Establish a physician advisory committee; and Provide ninety (90) days notice of changes in practices and policies and annual changes to fee schedules. “Hopefully this settlement by the nation’s largest health insurer signals a new day of cooperation with physicians and helps forge a new constructive working relationship with them,” said Tim Norbeck, Executive Director of the Connecticut State Medical Society. "The commitments obtained from WellPoint in this settlement represent real progress in our ongoing efforts to ensure that physicians in this country are able to achieve the highest quality health care for patients in this country. We are pleased that WellPoint has committed to these efforts," said Edith Kallas, partner with Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman in New York. 7.11.2005

Appeal

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:58:20 +0000

Appeal is a review of a health plan decision regarding a patient's health care with which the patient and/or his or her doctor disagrees. An "appeal" can refer to both review through the plan's own grievance process and a review by other outside decision-makers, such as the Department of Managed Health Care and independent medical review organizations.

Administrative record

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:54:10 +0000

Administrative record - all the papers, documents and recorded testimony in a proceeding before an HMO's administrative body.

Acute condition, illness

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:51:56 +0000

Acute condition or illness is a condition or illness that only lasts for a short period of time and usually is stopped with the appropriate care without requiring ongoing treatment. A common cold is an acute illness, as is a heart attack, because these conditions are short-lived and do not necessarily require continued care.

Illegal disclosure of medical records (CA)

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:41:19 +0000

Anyone who illegally obtains or discloses your medical information that causes you economic loss or personal injury may be guilty of a misdemeanor under California law. You may also bring an action against any person or entity that negligently releases confidential information or records in violation of California law for: * Nominal damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ( Damages awarded when you are unable to prove that the violation caused you monetary loss ) * Actual damages sustained by you. The Attorney General, any district attorney, city attorney, or city prosecutor may bring an action in the name of the people of California to recover a civil penalty. Licensing agencies or certifying boards may impose an administrative fine against individuals or entities that illegally obtain or disclose your medical record information. Source If you believe that your information has been illegally disclosed by Wellpoint or any of its subsidiaries, please submit us this evaluation form , which will be forwarded to the law firm handling the case.

ex CFO D. Colby sells Wellpoint stock

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:21:18 +0000

acute condition or illness