Resolving a split among the circuits on the superiority of the class action where the common question is the legality under the Balance Billing Act of a health care provider’s practice of filing liens seeking the undiscounted rates before or even after billing the patient’s insurer, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially noted “with significance” that “class action certification is purely procedural. What is of primary concern in the certification proceeding is simply whether the plaintiffs have met the statutory requirements to become a class action, not the merits of the underlying litigation.” The Court also reaffirmed that: “Any errors to be made in deciding class action issues should be in favor of and not against the maintenance of the class action.” Turning to the superiority requirement, the Court found that “the record shows there is little proof on liability or causation necessary in this case individual to each plaintiff. Their claims do not require highly individualized inquiries into the cause of the damages. The alleged damages were caused by Minden’s acting pursuant to its collection policy and procedure. The eventual question for the factfinder is whether or not Minden’s actions violated the Balance Billing Act. Once the factfinder determines Minden’s actions pursuant to its collection policy did or did not violate the Balance Billing Act, liability and causation for all class members is decided. Thus, this case fundamentally revolves around the interplay of Minden’s collection policy with the Balance Billing Act, the resolution of which will be conclusive to all. If the court eventually resolves this single, paramount issue in plaintiffs’ favor, the remaining issues individual to class members relate to the calculation of damages. It is only then the court will need to determine what damages are awardable under the Balance Billing Act. If the court resolves the paramount issue in defendant’s favor, any question regarding damages will be rendered moot. Moreover, there is no indication the consideration of the billing issue, particular to the plaintiffs, would require individual trials or be unduly burdensome. To the contrary, the evidence shows many claims may be small or nominal in nature, rendering individual actions financially impractical, if not impossible. Accordingly, we find the evidence does reasonably show the class action is the superior method for adjudication as the common question herein would be most efficiently answered in the context of a class action suit.” Baker v. PHC-Minden, 2014-2243 (La. 5/5/2015), 167 So.3d 528.