Milliman IntelliScript Lawsuit: Healy Class Action, 9th Circuit Ruling

The Milliman IntelliScript lawsuit is a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action filed by James Healy in the Western District of Washington, alleging that Milliman, Inc.’s IntelliScript service attributed other people’s prescription and medical records to insurance applicants and refused to correct the errors when consumers disputed them. Healy’s own report, submitted to Americo Financial Life and Annuity in April 2020, listed 13 medications he had never taken and 176 medical entries for conditions he did not have, including diabetes, sleep apnea, liver disease, and osteoarthritis. Americo denied his application. He sued in October 2020, and the case is now back before the trial court after a January 2026 Ninth Circuit ruling on class-member standing.¹

What IntelliScript Is

IntelliScript is a consumer reporting service run by Milliman, a large actuarial and consulting firm. It gathers prescription drug purchase histories and medical data and sells reports to insurers evaluating applicants for life, health, disability, long-term care, and critical illness coverage.² The reports include risk scores meant to estimate an applicant’s mortality risk, and underwriters use them to approve, price, or deny coverage.

The data comes from pharmacy benefit managers — CVS Caremark and Express Scripts/Medco are named as major sources — along with pharmacy data clearinghouses and retail pharmacies.³ Because IntelliScript reports qualify as consumer reports under federal law, Milliman must comply with the FCRA’s rules on accuracy, disclosure of sources, and reinvestigation of disputes.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

Healy filed his complaint on October 5, 2020, as case number 2:20-cv-01473.⁴ The suit accuses Milliman of violating three sections of the FCRA:

15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its reports.
15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2), by failing to clearly disclose the specific sources of information in a consumer’s file.
15 U.S.C. § 1681i, by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes what a report says.

The central theory is what Healy calls “fuzzy matching.” According to the complaint, IntelliScript links pharmacy and medical records to consumers using partial identifiers such as partial name matches, dates of birth, or ZIP codes, rather than requiring a full match on identifiers like a complete Social Security number. Healy alleges this creates “mixed files,” in which one person’s medical history is attributed to someone else.¹ Healy’s own report, the complaint says, contained another individual’s medical records and a Social Security number that was not his.⁴

The suit also alleges that when Healy tried to dispute the errors, Milliman refused to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. Instead, it required him to obtain and submit his own pharmacy records before it would take corrective action. And when he asked for the specific third-party sources of the bad data, the complaint says, Milliman would not identify them, leaving him unable to fix errors at their point of origin.⁴

The Class and the Standing Dispute

The district court certified an “inaccuracy class” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class covers people whose IntelliScript reports were sent to insurers and contained a mismatch between the applicant’s Social Security number and the number on the data source, combined with at least one prescription or medical entry flagged with a yellow or red risk indicator. Milliman’s own records identified 311,226 reports fitting those criteria.¹

Milliman then won partial summary judgment. The trial judge held that under the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, unnamed class members had to produce “direct evidence” of a concrete injury. A mismatched Social Security number, the court reasoned, did not prove that someone else’s health records had actually been attributed to the wrong person; it could just as easily reflect a typographical error in the data source.¹

The Ninth Circuit’s January 2026 Ruling

On January 9, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed. The court agreed that under TransUnion, both named plaintiffs and unnamed class members seeking money damages must show Article III standing at the summary judgment stage, and it stated that earlier Ninth Circuit cases allowing unnamed members to skip that inquiry are “no longer good law.”⁵

But the panel found the district court had set the evidentiary bar too high in two ways. It wrongly demanded “direct evidence” of injury when plaintiffs may rely on direct or circumstantial evidence, and it wrongly required Healy to show a jury would “necessarily” find class-wide standing, when the summary judgment standard asks only whether a rational factfinder “could” reasonably draw that inference.¹ Evidence that is merely “indicative” of an inaccurate report, the court said, can be enough to survive summary judgment on an FCRA accuracy claim. The panel sent the case back for the district court to reconsider whether the 311,226 flagged reports amount to sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer class-wide harm. It took no position on how that question should come out.

Defense-side commentators have described the ruling as cutting both ways. It hands defendants a tool to challenge overbroad classes at summary judgment rather than at trial, but it also confirms that plaintiffs can meet that challenge with circumstantial proof rather than individualized injury evidence from every member.⁶ The panel also noted, without elaborating, that “the standing requirements for damages and equitable relief are not necessarily the same,” leaving open how the framework applies to classes seeking injunctive relief.⁵

The Parallel Morris Case

Healy is not the only pending class action against Milliman over IntelliScript. In March 2023, Sharon Morris and Lars F. Brauer filed Morris et al. v. Milliman, Inc., case number 2:23-cv-00446, in the same federal court.⁷ Morris raises effectively the same FCRA claims and proposes two nationwide classes covering different time periods. The cases have not been consolidated, but in March 2024 the court stayed Morris pending summary judgment developments in Healy.⁸ With Healy now on remand, Morris is expected to resume.

Milliman’s Earlier FTC Consent Order

Federal regulators have looked at IntelliScript before. In September 2007, the Federal Trade Commission complained that Milliman had failed to give insurers buying IntelliScript reports the required “Notice to Users of Consumer Reports,” which spells out an insurer’s own FCRA obligations, including the duty to notify a consumer when adverse action is taken based on a report.⁹ A consent order issued February 12, 2008, required Milliman to provide the notice, maintain reasonable accuracy procedures, limit distribution to permissible purposes, handle disputes properly, and follow records-disposal rules. No monetary penalty was imposed, but the order carries civil-penalty exposure for future violations.¹⁰

Where Things Stand and What Consumers Can Do

As of mid-2026, neither case has settled. Healy is on remand to the Western District of Washington, where the trial court must apply the Ninth Circuit’s new standard to the 311,226 flagged reports and decide whether the class can proceed.¹ Morris remains stayed pending that ruling.⁸

Common IntelliScript errors described in the litigation and in outside reporting include medications matched to the wrong person, old or discontinued prescriptions listed as active, records mixed between family members with similar names, and incorrect dosages or refill dates.¹¹ If your insurance application has been denied or repriced based on an IntelliScript report, you have the right under the FCRA to request a free copy of your report, dispute inaccurate entries, and have Milliman reinvestigate at no charge. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lists IntelliScript as a consumer reporting company and accepts complaints about it.² If a dispute results in a revised report, Milliman must send the corrected version to both you and the entity that requested the original.¹²

1
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Healy v. Milliman, Inc., No. 24-3327
2
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Milliman IntelliScript
3
Change.org. Tell CVS and Walgreens To Stop Selling Our Prescription Drug Data
4
ClassAction.org. Healy v. Milliman, Inc., Complaint
5
Blank Rome LLP. Ninth Circuit Clarifies Class Member Standing in Healy v. Milliman
6
ABA Banking Journal. Ninth Circuit Rules Unnamed Class Members Must Show Article III Standing at Summary Judgment
7
ClassAction.org. Milliman IntelliScript Violated Consumer Reporting Law, Class Action Says
8
CaseMine. Morris et al. v. Milliman, Inc., Stipulated Stay Order
9
Federal Trade Commission. Providers of Consumers’ Medical Profiles Agree To Comply With Fair Credit Reporting Act
10
Federal Trade Commission. In the Matter of Milliman, Inc.
11
LTC News. Prescription Data Reports Adversely Impact Long-Term Care Insurance Underwriting Decisions
12
Milliman IntelliScript. Frequently Asked Questions