Blog

The Dangers of Distributing without addressing the ERISA Plan’s Claim

Blog

May 6th, 2019

Last week, on May 1, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected the logic of the decision in Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Weida, 300 f. Supp. 3d 663, creating a split within that district and potentially subjecting New York tort victim's $200,000.00 certificate of deposit and $62,000.00 van to recapture by the ERISA plan.

I want to thank Professor Roger Baron for bringing this case to my attention.

Just 16 months ago, Judge Stengel, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held: “Carpenter Technology cannot collect against the defendant's general assets or his assets jointly owned with his wife. The settlement funds no longer exist as a separate identifiable fund, and thus the relief requested cannot be granted.” Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Weida, 300 F. Supp. 3d 663, 673 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

Medicare Advantage Plan’s Double Damages Claims Limited by District Court for Connecticut

Blog
April 17th, 2018

If you have worked with Precision Resolution in the past or have been to any of our lectures, then you know that...

FEHB Reimbursement vs. Attorney’s Fee: What Takes Priority

Blog
February 21st, 2018

Federal Employee Health Benefit ("FEHB") plans have grown bolder in their attempts to collect since the U.S. Supreme Court decision inCoventry Health Care of Mo. v. Nevils, 137 S.Ct. 1190 (2017). See our past post on that case here. In some cases, these plans have claimed that their reimbursement rights are superior, even to the attorney's fee. If you find yourself in this situation, keep on reading.

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Act expressly provides that any provisions in a FEHB plan that "relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits" preempt state law which relates to health insurance or plans. 5 U.S.C. §8902(m)(1).

An Explanation of the Dissipation of Settlement Proceeds in ERISA Matters

Blog
January 22nd, 2018

The Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Weida, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5559, 2018 WL 398297 case provides a great analysis as to the specifically identifiable fund requirement of the Sereboff line of cases; and when that fund is destroyed by "dissipation" under the Montanile case.

This case is a very well-written, and very specific, District Court decision. Consequently, I would recommend, before blindly distributing funds based on Montanile and this case, to consult your state's ethics rules regarding notification to a third-party claim holder to a fund which you possess. Here, the plan was notified of intent to distribute, but it waited nine months to file the action.

The Dangers of Distributing without addressing the ERISA Plan’s Claim

Do You Have Questions Regarding Your Client’s Public Benefits Eligibility?

Stay in the know.