A U.S. district judge in Jacksonville has slammed the door on CVS-Aetna’s federal court fight with Radiology Partners, tossing the insurer’s lawsuit on April 16, 2026, and cutting off its bid to unwind earlier arbitration wins by the radiology giant. The order, entered "with prejudice," blocks Aetna from bringing the same claims again and marks a major courtroom victory for the nation’s largest radiology group.
In an order filed April 16, U.S. District Judge Brian J. Davis granted Radiology Partners’ motion to dismiss and found that Aetna had not properly raised its objections during arbitration, while also stressing that courts have limited power to second-guess independent dispute-resolution outcomes. Vacating an IDR award requires a heavy showing under the Federal Arbitration Act, and Judge Davis declined to disturb the prior decisions, according to the Georgetown Law Litigation Tracker.
Aetna first went to court in December 2024, alleging a "multiphase fraud scheme" in which Radiology Partners allegedly routed claims through its Jacksonville affiliate, Mori, Bean and Brooks, to obtain higher reimbursements and spark mass arbitration disputes. As reported by Radiology Business, Aetna said that strategy led to "tens of thousands" of arbitration demands and losses it pegged in the tens of millions. The company’s health plans cover more than 36 million people, according to the insurer’s website, underscoring the size of the payer that lost this round.
Radiology Partners, for its part, said it was more than satisfied with the result. "The ruling makes clear that this lawsuit could not be used to unwind IDR outcomes after the fact," Malea Reising, the company’s vice president of strategic communications, said in a statement, as reported by Radiology Business. The practice group also pointed to government-approved arbitrators ruling in its favor in the vast majority of disputes as evidence that the IDR process was functioning as intended.
The ruling tracks a growing trend of federal judges nudging insurers back toward arbitration and away from courtroom do-overs of IDR results. Earlier this month, a California judge tossed Elevance/Anthem’s suit against HaloMD for similar reasons, saying courts are constrained in their ability to review IDR outcomes, according to Healthcare Dive.
What This Means For Insurers And The IDR Process
The order reinforces that the No Surprises Act’s independent dispute-resolution mechanism largely shuts the door on broad judicial re-examination of arbitration awards, and that vacatur is available only on narrow statutory grounds with a steep evidentiary burden. Judge Davis underscored that insurers who believe an award is improper generally must press their objections during arbitration rather than try to undo the result in district court, according to the Georgetown Law Litigation Tracker.
The dismissal in case No. 3:24-cv-1343 closes one of the highest-profile tests of how far insurers can go in challenging IDR outcomes in federal court. With the judge barring these claims from being refiled, the dispute now appears more likely to play out through arbitration, regulatory avenues, and the ongoing policy fight over whether Congress should revisit how IDR awards are reviewed.
