Archive for the ‘Provider Reimbursement’ Category

When negotiations concerning a possible settlement of plaintiff’s subrogation claim failed, Ms. DeBoer demanded her share of the settlement, and the attorney defendants paid over to her the amounts they had recovered, less their counsel fees and expenses. In doing so, they carefully notified Ms. DeBoer of her obligation to repay the plaintiff’s subrogation claim, and obtained from Ms. DeBoer an agreement to indemnify them against any claims which might ensue because they had paid over the proceeds to her. The present lawsuit followed. Read more

There is a recent newsworthy item that I wish to discuss, as it is pertinent to our industry.  The November 20, 2007 Wall Street Journal featured an extremely negative cover story, relating to the self-insured industry’s subrogation activities under ERISA.  These types of prominent news stories do nothing for the self-insured industry except motivate the public to change current ERISA legislation.  For those of you who do not know about this case, the story covers a woman’s collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago, leaving the 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, received a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust to be used for Mrs. Shank’s care.  Read more

On September 25, 2007, a Federal District Court in New Jersey held in Mulholland v. UFCW Local 1776 Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, 2007 WL 2814648 (DNJ) that the purchase of stop loss insurance does not preclude self-funded ERISA status. The court went on to say that because self-funded plans can come close to becoming a fully insured plan, the question is not whether a self-funded plan has reinsurance, but rather, how high is their specific deductible. In other words, does the self-funded plan retain considerable risk of loss, or, does the Plan purchase an excessive amount of stop-loss insurance? Read more

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently presided over a case involving a plan’s denial of claims due to a lack of signed subrogation agreement. Don Burgett, Et. Al. v. MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70934, (September 25, 2007). The Plan in this case lost, and the court determined the Plan’s conditioning payment of claims on the signing of a subrogation agreement was not supported by the summary plan document (”SPD”). The court held that the language of the SPD controls and additional agreements cannot create new rights for the Plan. Read more

The Texas Made-Whole Rule, adopted in Ortiz v. Great Southern Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., no longer applies to cases where the Plan disclaims the rule and requires full reimbursement in the plan document. 597 S.W.2d 342, (Tex. 1980). In the Ortiz case the insurance carrier relied upon arguments made in equity. The court held that health plans do not have an equitable right to recovery until the plan beneficiary is fully compensated. Id. Read more

In the case of Bauhaus USA, Inc. v. Lillie Regina Holmes Copeland, et. al., 2007 Miss. LEXIS 545 (September 27, 2007), a self-funded Plan coming under the purview of ERISA sought reimbursement of claims it had paid on behalf of a minor child. The court took possession of funds in order to create a trust and use the funds to protect the minor. Read more

In Cheryl Street v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, (2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18643), the Northern District Court of Illinois held on March 15, 2007 that just as a Plan must identify funds prior to seeking equitable relief in Federal Court, so too must relief sought by participants be specifically identifiable. In one case, decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a group of employee Plan Participants brought their Plan Administrator to court for handling their assets in an irresponsible manner. In Eichorn, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 484 F.3d 644, (May 2, 2007), the Court held that while ERISA makes it illegal for a Plan Administrator to prevent the attainment of rights provided by the Plan, actions that lessen the value of the rights are not so prohibited. As such, in a case like this one, the only relief available was in the form of monetary awards and back pay, which is not “equitable relief” for purposes of Federal jurisdiction. Read more

In March of 2005, Poyner was injured when an automobile struck her while she was riding her bicycle and received nearly $ 200,000.00 in medical benefits. Subsequently she recovered $ 10,000.00 from the insurer of the automobile which struck her and $100,000.00 from her own under insured motorist coverage. The Plan attempted to persuade Poyner to abide by the terms of the benefit plan, which required her to pay the Plan the $110,000.00 she collected from the two insurance policies. Poyner asserted that ERISA prohibits anything other than an equitable remedy in such a situation and the Trust’s claim was one for money, not an equitable remedy. Read more

Section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA permits a fiduciary to bring a civil action “to obtain equitable relief to enforce the terms of the plan”. To obtain this “equitable relief,” the basis for the fiduciary’s claim and the relief it seeks must be equitable in nature. Importantly, a fiduciary cannot seek to impose personal liability, as that would be a legal remedy. The Policy in this case required repayment of an overpayment of benefits that resulted when a claimant received benefits in the amount of $ 19,612. The Plan requested reimbursement and the beneficiary refused, stating that she no longer had any of the funds. Read more