A federal judge in Kentucky threw out a case against Humana Inc., claiming former employees had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the company charged excessive record-keeping fees and failed to adequately search for a less expensive record keeper.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings accepted the expert testimony of the defendants\u2019 expert Pete Swisher that Humana had a prudent process while rejecting the comparisons put forth by the plaintiffs\u2019 expert. The judge excluded the testimony of Veronica Bray.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause Bray provides no reasonable explanation for her selection of the six plans and herself acknowledges they are not comparable to the Humana plan, the Court will exclude her testimony,\u201d Jennings wrote in Moore et al. vs. Humana Inc. et al.<\/p>\n
The judge claimed that the plan\u2019s record keeper offered the lowest fees of any provider solicited via an RFP and that annual benchmarking revealed as \u201cstill reasonable\u201d the record-keeping fees. Again, it\u2019s all about a process.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A federal judge in Kentucky threw out a case against Humana Inc., claiming former employees had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the company charged excessive record-keeping fees and failed to adequately search for a less expensive record keeper. U.S. … Continue reading