<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Passion for Subro &#187; Attorneys&#8217; Fees</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/attorney-fees/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com</link>
	<description>The personal subrogation blog of Attorney Adam V. Russo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Texas House Bill 274</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/texas-house-bill-274/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/texas-house-bill-274/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.subrogation.org Texas recently introduced a bill allowing recovery of attorney’s fees by a prevailing party when a trier of fact determines there has been an “abusive civil action”.  An attorney may be held jointly and severally liable for litigation costs awarded, if they have a financial interest in the action.  Financial Interest is defined as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/texas-house-bill-274/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assignments of Benefits – Do They Include Rights To Statutory Penalties &amp; Attorneys’ Fees?</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/assignments-of-benefits-%e2%80%93-do-they-include-rights-to-statutory-penalties-attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/assignments-of-benefits-%e2%80%93-do-they-include-rights-to-statutory-penalties-attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com  Roy Harmon III March 15, 2011 It is well-established that ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries may assign their rights to their health care provider. Misic v. Bldg. Serv. Employees Health &#38; Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374, 1378-79 (9th Cir. 1986). As an assignee, the provider has standing “to assert the claims of his assignors.” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/assignments-of-benefits-%e2%80%93-do-they-include-rights-to-statutory-penalties-attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ERISA Plan Subrogation Provisions Eliminate Attorneys’ Fee Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/erisa-plan-subrogation-provisions-eliminate-attorneys%e2%80%99-fee-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/erisa-plan-subrogation-provisions-eliminate-attorneys%e2%80%99-fee-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=4818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com January 20, 2011 • Johnson Controls v. Flaherty, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 969 (11th Cir.) (January 18, 2011) (unpublished) presents a typical subrogation scenario. The plan brought suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), for medical benefits that the employee benefits plan, Johnson Controls, Inc. Welfare Plan (”the Plan”), had paid resulting from a bicycle [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/erisa-plan-subrogation-provisions-eliminate-attorneys%e2%80%99-fee-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>T.A. Loving v. Denton</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/t-a-loving-v-denton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/t-a-loving-v-denton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[6th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reimbursement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Summary Federal district court in N.C. favors recovery after lien is dissolved by attorney – Denton is injured and gets a $100,000 settlement, her attorney takes $33,800 of that and disburses the remainder to Denton with a warning that her share could be recovered by the plan. The plan paid $48,250. The plan sued Denton [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/t-a-loving-v-denton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From the Bench</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SIIA, www.siia.org By Thomas A. Croft, Esq. I. The Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Attorney Fee Provision We have two reasons for reviewing Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010). First, it is the latest ERISA decision from the Supreme Court cases define ERISA jurisprudence, they cannot be ignored. Second, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Health Reform: New Subrogation And Reimbursement Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made Whole Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coordination of Benefits Handbook The government has yet to sort out the conflicting interests involved in subrogation/reimbursement dispute. Because there will be no reform body directly creating subrogation/reimbursement rules, the matter remains one of balancing various laws. For instance, laws in many states limit plans’ ability to recover health expenses based on the “make-whole,” “collateral [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Statute Limits Insurer’s Reimbursement from Tort Settlement</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-statute-limits-insurer%e2%80%99s-reimbursement-from-tort-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-statute-limits-insurer%e2%80%99s-reimbursement-from-tort-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:55:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coordination of Benefits Handbook In a case that does not involve a health plan subject to ERISA, a Florida appellate court ruled that a health plan’s reimbursement from the proceeds of a settlement of a medical malpractice case was limited to the amount paid by the plan less its pro-rata share of attorney’s fees incurred [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-statute-limits-insurer%e2%80%99s-reimbursement-from-tort-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Bar Association Eyes Creating Additional Right to Attorneys Fees for Fighting Subrogation Liens and Recoveries</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-bar-association-eyes-creating-additional-right-to-attorneys-fees-for-fighting-subrogation-liens-and-recoveries/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-bar-association-eyes-creating-additional-right-to-attorneys-fees-for-fighting-subrogation-liens-and-recoveries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NASP, www.subrogation.org Florida attorneys and recovery specialists should be aware that the Florida Bar Association Board of Governors is looking to adopt a rule change to the fee limits that are placed on contingency fees that will allow attorneys who fight against subrogation liens to charge a fee separate from or in excess of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/florida-bar-association-eyes-creating-additional-right-to-attorneys-fees-for-fighting-subrogation-liens-and-recoveries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Holds ERISA-Based Attorneys&#8217; Fees Available</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/supreme-court-holds-erisa-based-attorneys-fees-available/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/supreme-court-holds-erisa-based-attorneys-fees-available/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.laborlawyers.com Even If Plaintiff Is Not Technically &#8220;Prevailing Party&#8221; On May 24, 2010 the U. S. Supreme Court held that a party does not need to be a &#8220;prevailing party&#8221; in order to be eligible for an attorneys&#8217; fees award under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In reaching this decision, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/supreme-court-holds-erisa-based-attorneys-fees-available/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Hampshire House Bill 1259/ Attorney Fees &amp; Expenses in Medical Subrogation</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/new-hampshire-house-bill-1259-attorney-fees-expenses-in-medical-subrogation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/new-hampshire-house-bill-1259-attorney-fees-expenses-in-medical-subrogation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=2222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee reviewed and recommended a bill recently pertaining to contract, Medicaid or statutory subrogation rights of subrogation for “”reimbursement of medical expenses” against plaintiff’s recovery. The proposed bill requires these subrogated entities to pay costs and attorney fees to the injured party “as justice requires”. The bill does not give [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/new-hampshire-house-bill-1259-attorney-fees-expenses-in-medical-subrogation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

