Tami S. Smason is a partner and trial lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP, where she focuses on business and administrative litigation and arbitration, including contract, lease and partnership disputes, unfair competition, fraud, regulatory violations, consumer class actions, and appeals.
Ms. Smason is an experienced trial lawyer, having tried both jury and non-jury cases. She is experienced in all phases of litigation, including management of complex multi-party cases and has extensive experience with legal issues affecting the health care industry.
GENERAL BUSINESS LITIGATION :
- Obtained defense judgment after trial in case brought by a class of limited partners against general partner alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty
- Obtained California Supreme Court decision invalidating application of Lemon Law to vehicles purchased outside the state
- Obtained preliminary injunction that resulted in forced sale of 50% partnership interest to other partner
HEALTH CARE LITIGATION :
- Obtained a writ of mandate against the California Department of Health Services challenging actuarial soundness of certain Medi-Cal rates
- Obtained dismissal of purported class action claiming homeopathic product was falsely advertised
- Successfully defended arbitration claim seeking $24 million based on pharmaceutical benefits contract
- Defended and settled class action brought against insurer and health plan for violation of Mental Health Parity Act
Education : Ms. Smason is a graduate of University of California, Berkeley (J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, 1985; B.S., business administration, with honors, 1981).
Admissions and Professional Memberships :
She was admitted to the California Bar in 1985 and also is admitted to practice before the United States District Court, Central, Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts of California, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
Ms. Smason is a member of the American Bar Association and the Litigation Sections of the State Bar of California and the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She is also a board member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers.
Representative Matters :
- A member of a health plan sued over a determination that Applied Behavioral Analysis (“ABA”) was not medically necessary to treat her autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and therefore not covered.
- The plaintiff sought widespread discovery and damages for bad faith for the health plan’s alleged denials of coverage to other members.
- The health plan argued that the other members’ claims were prior to changes in the law and internal policy, and so were irrelevant.
- The prescriptions by a doctor who was on the Medicaid excluded provider list would not be covered under a pharmacy benefit manager’s (“PBM’s”) benefit plan.
- A doctor sued the PBM for defamation for communicating that fact to patients who presented his prescriptions at retail pharmacies.
- The court granted summary judgment in favor of the PBM in this health care litigation.
- Successfully represented the Contra Costa Health Plan in a petition for a writ of mandate against the California Department of Health Services challenging certain Medi-Cal rates as not being actuarially sound.
- The Department used an actuary to set the rates, but then reduced them based on state budgetary constraints. The court ordered the Department to re-calculate the rates to comply with the requirement that the ultimate rates be actuarially sound.
- The Department recalculated the rates, but again reduced them for budgetary considerations. Foley filed a motion to enforce the Writ of Mandate to have the rates recalculated without reduction for the budgetary consideration.
- The court granted the motion and again ordered the Department to re-calculate the rates. The Department and the Health Plan settled on an agreeable payment.
Rate : $$$$