- April 30th, 2020
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied a plaintiff’s personal injury attorney’s motion to dismiss an ERISA plan’s action to seek reimbursement against him and his firm in McKesson v. Dillow, 2020 WL 1469461, Case No. 3:19-cv-164 (S.D. Ohio, March 25, 2020).
The facts are much like any other case in this context. Diana Dillow sustained catastrophic injuries as a result of a motor vehicle collision. She retained counsel, Douglas Brannon and the Brannon Law Firm, LLC, for her liability claim against the third party responsible for her injuries. Ms. Dillow’s counsel was successful in securing a pre-suit settlement from the tortfeasor’s carrier in the amount of $5.9 million.
Ms. Dillow was an eligible dependent under the McKesson Corporation’s health care plan (a self-funded ERISA plan) which asserted a lien for medical payments made in the amount of $2.1 million. The lien was asserted by McKesson’s recovery agent, the Rawlings Company, nearly a year prior to the case’s settlement.
- 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...
- 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...
- 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).