- November 17th, 2015
SCOTUS Discusses Attorney Liability in Self-Funded ERISA Cases: A Sneak Peek into the Mindset of the Justices in Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan
Last Monday, November 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether dissipation of settlement funds would defeat recovery of a purported equitable lien by a self-funded ERISA plan in the matter of Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, No. 14-723. The oral arguments gave some insight into the Justices’ thinking regarding lawyer liability in this setting.
This case will ultimately turn on the Justices’ determination as to when an “equitable lien by agreement” attaches, and therefore whether dissipation of the settlement funds defeats a lien claimed by a self-funded ERISA plan.
- October 13th, 2015
In 2006, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Eight Circuit’s decision in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), which has shaped the way State Medicaid programs are able to recover against Medicaid beneficiaries in third party lawsuits. As a result of Ahlborn, Medicaid’s recovery of third party settlement proceeds, at most, is limited to the amount of the settlement attributable to past medical expenses.
Precision Resolution, LLC and our staff of attorneys have had great success over the past several years significantly reducing or, even eliminating, Medicaid liens in New York State. Since 2011, Precision Resolution has put over $38 million back into the pockets of plaintiffs by negotiating and eliminating Medicaid, Medicare, self-funded ERISA plans, and other types of liens against the settlement in single claimant actions. Most importantly however, is that during this time period, hundreds of plaintiffs’ counsels, by deferring these complicated issues to Precision’s legal experts, have been able to focus on what gets them paid: their personal injury practices.
- October 2nd, 2014
A decision handed down yesterday, September 30, 2014 by the United States District Court Central District of California in Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan, LA CV 12-06693-VBF.
The following analysis come to us from Professor Roger Baron:
Yesterday the U.S. District Court for California, Central Division (Los Angeles) entered its ruling that the Motion Picture Industry ERISA plan's reimbursement provisions are enforceable because they are contained only in the plan's Summary Plan Description (SPD) and not in a Plan Document. This situation which developed here was especially burdensome for the ERISA beneficiary and her family. The ERISA plan had paid $148,000 of medical bills and then demanded the victim turn over her entire tort recovery of $100,000, plus interest. When the victim refused, the ERISA plan quit providing health coverage for the victim and her entire family of four.