Ninth Circuit: Class Members Must Show Standing Before Trial

Case: Healy v. Milliman, Inc.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: No. 24-3327 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026)
Decided: January 9, 2026
Bottom line: Class cases over inaccurate reports can go forward on circumstantial proof of harm, but plaintiffs must build that proof before trial.

Background

Milliman’s “Intelliscript” product compiles prescription and medical histories and sells them to life insurers evaluating applicants. Milliman matches records to applicants mostly by Social Security number, but also uses “fuzzy matching” on names and other identifiers. It then flags each item red, yellow, or green. A red flag tells the insurer it can decline the application without further review.

James Healy applied for life insurance in 2020. Milliman’s report attached another person’s medical records and Social Security number to him, flagging liver disease, diabetes, and other conditions he did not have. The insurer denied him. He sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and the district court certified an “inaccuracy class” of 311,226 reports that contained a Social Security number that did not match the applicant’s and at least one yellow or red flag.

Milliman then moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the class could not show that every member was actually harmed. The district court agreed, holding that under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), Healy needed “direct evidence” of concrete injury across the class. A mismatched Social Security number, it said, did not necessarily mean the medical data was wrong.

What the court held

The panel (Judge S.R. Thomas writing) agreed with part of the district court’s ruling and reversed the rest.

On timing, the court held that the logic of TransUnion requires both named and unnamed members of a certified damages class to present evidence of standing at summary judgment, not just later when individual damages are paid. TransUnion examined the trial record for unnamed class members’ injuries, and standing must be shown “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.”

On the standard, the court held the usual summary judgment rules apply. Plaintiffs need only show a genuine dispute of material fact about standing, and they can use direct or circumstantial evidence. The district court erred twice: by requiring direct evidence, and by asking whether mismatched numbers “necessarily” proved a mixed file instead of whether a jury “could” reasonably infer it. The court noted the district court had itself called the evidence “indicative of a misattributed or erroneous health record,” which is circumstantial evidence.

The case was remanded for the district court to apply the correct standard. The panel expressed no view on the outcome.

Our take

This decision cuts both ways, and we think the second half matters more.

The first holding adds a checkpoint. Defendants in FCRA class cases in the Ninth Circuit will now move for summary judgment on class-wide standing after certification, and plaintiffs must be ready with evidence then, not later. The holding is framed around classes seeking money damages; the court noted that standing rules for injunctive relief are not necessarily the same.

But the second holding is a real check on overreach. After TransUnion, some courts have treated class-wide standing as requiring proof that each member was harmed, member by member. Healy says no: ordinary summary judgment rules apply, and circumstantial evidence drawn from a defendant’s own data, like hundreds of thousands of reports with someone else’s Social Security number and a risk flag, can carry the burden. For mixed-file cases, which are often proven through exactly this kind of data, that is important.

The case also shows how much harm a specialty reporting agency can do. Insurance medical-history reports are consumer reports under the FCRA, and they can decide whether a family gets coverage.

What it means if your report is wrong

If you are denied life, health, or disability insurance, ask the insurer whether it relied on a consumer report, and request your file from Milliman (Intelliscript) and from other specialty reporting agencies like the MIB. You have a right under § 1681g to see what they reported and under § 1681i to dispute it. Mixed files, where someone else’s records are attached to you, are among the most damaging errors. A free case review can assess how this ruling affects your claim, with no fee unless we win.

Sources

Primary

Commentary we reviewed

Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.