10.  Neuro-Psychology Associates describes the services it provides to patients  utilizing the Current Procedural Terminology (“CPT”) code set developed and maintained by the  American Medical Association and used to facilitate communication and reporting between  health care providers and health care payors like CIGNA.     11.  CIGNA has continually denied reimbursement for several CPT codes submitted to  CIGNA by Neuro-Psychology Associates for services that are necessary and properly payable.   12.  The codes in dispute are CPT codes 96118, 96119, and 96120.   13.  CPT code 96118 is a “professional” code and may only be submitted for services  rendered by a fully-licensed psychologist or physician.   14.  CPT code 96119 is a “technical” code used for face-to-face testing administered  by an individual who is licensed at less than the Ph.D. level.   15.  CPT code 96120 is the used for testing administered by computer.   16.  Health care providers in the United States may bill one or more codes  simultaneously using Modifier -59, used to indicate distinct procedural services all reimbursable  by the health care payor.   17.  CIGNA has repeatedly denied reimbursement to Neuro-Psychology Associates  using Modifier -59 for CPT codes 96119 and 96120 when these services are properly payable.   18.  The dollar amount of services improperly denied by CIGNA solely to the  named Plaintiff alone totals $11,295.56.  19.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   20.  This class action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all health  care providers in the United States and its territories who submit CPT codes 96118, 96119, and  96120 to CIGNA for reimbursement of properly payable services.   21.  Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under Rule  23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   23.  Based on the number of individuals enrolled in CIGNA individual and group  health plans and the size of the reimbursements at issue, Plaintiffs reasonably believe the amount  in controversy exceeds $5 million.   24.  All members of the class have been subject to and affected by the same conduct.   The claims are based on health care benefits contracts and uniform provider reimbursement  requirements.  There are questions of law and fact that are common to the class that predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.  These questions include, but  are not limited to the following:  a. Whether the reimbursement practices complained of constitute a breach of  the insurance contracts;  b. Whether and to what extent Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed by  the Defendant‟s improper conduct; and  c. The proper measure of damages sustained by Plaintiff and Class Members.   25.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the class claims and do not  conflict with the interests of any other class members in that both the Plaintiff and the other class  members were subject to the same or similar health care benefits contracts, uniform provider  reimbursement requirements, and/or other agreements/policies issued by the Defendant, and  subject to the same conduct of the Defendant, namely, denial of reimbursement for properly  payable services.    27.  A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient adjudication  of this controversy.  A class action regarding the issues in this case does not create any problems  of manageability.   28.  This putative class action meets at least one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b).  29.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   30.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of  the Class described above.    31.  Neuro-Psychology Associates is an intended third-party beneficiary of the  insurance contract(s) between CIGNA and patients of Neuro-Psychology Associates.    32.  CIGNA‟s denial of reimbursement constitutes a breach of contract with its  insured, and a breach of contract rights granted to Neuro-Psychology Associates as an intended  third-party beneficiary of the contract(s).   33.  As a result of CIGNA‟s breach of contract, Neuro-Psychology Associates has  suffered damages and incurred fees and costs.  34.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   35.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of  the Class described above.    36.  Defendant is obligated by contract and common law to act in good faith and to  deal fairly with each insured and each provider.   38.  As a result of Defendant‟s failure to act in good faith and the absence of fair  dealing, Neuro-Psychology Associates has suffered damages and incurred fees and costs.  39.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   40.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of  the Class described above.    41.  GIGNA‟s denial of properly payable reimbursements is an unfair and deceptive  act or practice under Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 93A, § 11.   42.  The named Plaintiff has pursued every administrative remedy and sent a Demand  for Relief to GIGNA and no payments have been made.   43.  As a result of CIGNA‟s unfair and deceptive practices, Neuro-Psychology  Associates has suffered damages and incurred fees and costs.  BREACH OF CONTRACT   BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING   VIOLATION OF MASS. GEN. LAWS, CHAPTER 93A, SECTION 11  