The underlying dispute centers on how United Healthcare covers and reimburses deep inferior epigastric perforator flap surgeries — a reconstructive procedure — for its insureds. Plaintiff Barbara Williams, joined by physician Joseph F. Tamburrino as assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., sued on behalf of themselves and a proposed class, challenging the insurer's reimbursement policies. The District of New Jersey denied class certification on January 28, 2026, concluding that substantial variation in plan language — which would dictate the standard of review applicable to each class member's claim — defeated commonality under Rule 23(a)(2).
Williams moved for reconsideration, arguing that United Healthcare's August 2025 policy change affecting reimbursements for future DIEP flap surgeries constituted new evidence warranting a second look. The court rejected that argument on two independent grounds. First, the policy change was announced in August 2025, months before the January 2026 ruling, and Williams had sufficient time to bring it to the court's attention but chose not to — meaning it did not qualify as new evidence for reconsideration purposes.
Second, even if the policy change had qualified as new evidence, the court held it would not have altered the outcome. The claims at issue arose years before the policy change took effect, making it inapplicable to the plaintiffs' own claims. And the variation in plan language that sank class certification in the first place would persist regardless: individualized inquiries into which plans reserve discretion and how far that discretion extends would still be required.
Williams also argued the court had misapplied Rule 23(a)(2) by improperly importing a predominance inquiry into the commonality analysis. The court rejected that contention as well, noting that Williams had already appealed the commonality ruling, and that the appellate court would address the issue in due course.
The court held that the remainder of the reconsideration motion identified no intervening change in controlling law, no previously unavailable evidence, and no error that would produce manifest injustice if left uncorrected. The motion was denied.