Whether the anti-assignment provision in the health benefit plan apply to W. A. Griffin, MD (\'Dr. Griffin\'), a Georgia provider; who obtained a written assignment of benefit from her patient in accordance with Georgia State mandatory assignment of benefit law (Georgia § 33-24-54)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Whether: the anti-assignment provision in the | health benefit plan apply to W. A. Griffin, MD (“Dr. Griffin”), a Georgia provider; who obtained a written assignment of benefit from her patient in accordance with Georgia State mandatory assignment of benefit law (Georgia § 33-24-54). Anti-assignment and anti-alienation provisions | contained in employer sponsored group health | benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement | Investment Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) are | usually not applicable to an assignee who is the | provider of the services which the plans are | maintained to furnish: Dr. Griffin.. provided | health services to Patient K.R., an individual covered by the Savannah River Nuclear | Solutions, LLC, employer-sponsored group | health benefit plan (“Savannah River Nuclear | Plan”), and Patient K. R. executed a written assignment benefit to Dr. Griffin that states this assignment is a “direct legal assignment of [Patient K.R.’s] rights and benefits under” the Plan. The District Court and the Eleventh Circuit have repeatedly stated that the | language “rights and benefits” does not cover | rights to statutory penalties and/or breaches of | fiduciary duty claims and that Dr. Griffin does not have a valid assignment of benefit, because ' the state assignment law is pre-empted by | ERISA. | . | 17 1 , i | j | ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Even though Dr. Griffin has shown the District Court this Court’s instructive authority that clearly illustrates that the Georgia assignment of benefit statue ‘is not pre-empted by ERISA in Rutledge, it refuses to acknowledge that: Dr. Griffin-has a valid assignment (or any rights ) that pertain.to an assignment of benefit obtained in accordance with Georgia law. Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, No. 18-540, 2020 WL 7250098 ‘Ss. Ct. 10, Dec..2020) an Ce, , The quéstion is whether a writ of mandamus should-be issued directing the District Court to halt the unlawful blockade of Dr. Griffin’s payment and non-payment related ERISA rights. Rutledge clearly directs every court to” —enforce the U.S. Supreme’ Court’s order. ; : .