Pirozzi v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Virginia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• expressing skepticism with defense expert testimony that the number of high-density chemotherapy treatments was “still too small” to determine whether treatment was experimental for breast cancer because expert “was unable to suggest a number of patients that would provide sufficient data”
• refusing to uphold 16 coverage denial based on health plan’s internal “technology evaluation criteria” because “the 17 criteria are not part of the Plan and the Plan nowhere states that the Blue Cross criteria are 18 determinative of a treatment’s experimental status”
• comparative data is one of five technology assessment criteria used by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
• “[tjhere is ample evidence that [HDC-ABMT] results in tumor shrinkage and that tumor shrinkage correlates with increased survival”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).