The complaint filed in Montgomery County's 457th District Court states, "The existence of an ongoing, out-of-control 'outbreak' is not a prerequisite for COVID testing and would, in fact, run contrary to state and federal efforts to combat the spread. Cigna's inability to comprehend or follow federal and state COVID guidance is shocking."

"Cigna's comment that Genesis was unfairly 'profiting' off the pandemic by charging for COVID testing is a slap-in-the-face to Genesis and other healthcare providers who endured months of furloughs, pay cuts, layoffs, and uncertainty as a result of the pandemic. Cigna, on the other hand, raked in $8.5 billion in profit in 2020, and $5.4 billion in profit for 2021," the complaint said.

Genesis alleges that now that the pandemic is on the wane Cigna instructed its employees to recoup as much money as possible from healthcare providers like Genesis.

Another rationale Cigna used to demand reimbursements is a claim that Genesis performed non-reimbursable "back-to-work" testing. Back-to-work testing refers to a practice of employers requiring employees get a negative COVID-19 test result to return to in-office work.

However, the vast majority of the challenged tests were onsite at the companies' plants for workers that were actively working at the time, Genesis states.

"Genesis' onsite services were done 'as needed' due to reported cases of COVID and the number of potential exposures. The 'as-needed' nature of Genesis' … services is not only confirmed by its communications with Schlumberger and Foxconn, but also by the sporadic dates of those onsite testing events," the complaint states.

Cigna then claimed Genesis used wrong billing codes that resulted in a higher reimbursement rate, Genesis states. These claims, the medical group asserts, is based on an "erroneous impression" on how tests are processed through Genesis' laboratory, and on a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, policy change for antigen tests that was not in effect when the testing was performed.

"The fact that CMS later issued a new, separate code for antigen testing does not mean that Genesis must pay back funds it received for billing under existing guidance at the time," Genesis argues.

Cigna also challenged Genesis' virtual services that occurred at its facilities for onsite workers, but Genesis claims the client employers would send one-off employees to be tested and treated via Genesis' drive-through clinic.

Genesis alleges that the repayment demand is late as a matter of law. Mahendru cites the Texas Insurance Code, which states the insurance company has 180 days after the date the provider receives payment to provide written notice of the overpayment.

Genesis is demanding a judicial declaration that it properly billed Cigna and Cigna is precluded from challenging the alleged overpayments, which are now "stale." Genesis is also claiming entitlement to its attorney fees.

Cigna did not responded to a request for comment by news deadline.