Adam V. Russo | August 25, 2010
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 by the plaintiff. The case is Ingenix v. Ham, 2010 WL 1780012 (Fla. App., May 5, 2010). (more…)
Category: Attorneys' Fees, ERISA, Florida, Preemption, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits
The common-law collateral source rule is intended to ensure that a person who suffers a financial loss as a result of other person’s wrongdoing does not achieve reimbursement of more than 100 percent of the loss from all sources. In Ohio, the modern collateral source rule is governed by a statute that permits the alleged wrongdoer to “introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the [injured party] as a result of the damages that result from an injury, death or loss to person or property that is the subject of a claim upon which the action is based, except of the source of collateral benefits has… a contractual right of subrogation.” The Supreme Court of Ohio recently considered the application of the statute in determining how much the injured party received in benefits from his health insurer. The case is Jacques v. Manton, 2010 WL 1816324 (S. Ct. Ohio, May 4, 2010). (more…)
Category: Ohio, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
Alabama’s collateral source rule statute has been through a turbulent history since it was enacted in 1987. In 1996, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Alabama Constitution. However, in 2000, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision holding that statute to be unconstitutional. A recent decision by a U.S. District Court in Alabama dealt with the complexities resulting from this turbulent history. The case is Shelley v. White, 2010 WL 1904043 (M.D. Ala., May 10, 2010). (more…)
Category: Alabama, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | July 20, 2010
By Daran P. Keifer, Kreiner & Peters Co.
2009 was a rough year for subrogation rights in the United States, as we saw many more bills across the various states and even in Congress, which sought to undermine or eliminate subrogation rights. NASP continues to expand its influence as the premier resource for education about “subrogation” and its importance to society. Your Amicus Committee’s efforts in various states prompted other organizations to consult and rely on NASP for education about the vital role subrogation plays. The first quarter of 2010 continued the frenetic pace at which states sought to restrict subrogation rights while strengthening NASP position within the insurance community. (more…)
Category: Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | June 28, 2010
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 contingency fee caps found in the Rules of Professional Conduct. (more…)
Category: Attorneys' Fees, Florida, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010
As you may have heard, a law was just passed in Colorado which devastates subrogation and reimbursement efforts in that State, under State law. This only applies to fully funded insurance carriers, and self-funded benefit plans which obey State law, such as governmental entities and houses of worship.
Not only does C.R.S. § 10-1-135, which will become effective on August 11, 2010, institute a statutory made-whole rule; it also creates a common fund doctrine as well. (more…)
Category: Colorado, State Law, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | May 26, 2010
Very strange case where the plan participant never appears to defend herself against the efforts of the plan to obtain a judgment imposing a constructive trust or equitable lien against tort settlement proceeds. The case is ACS Recovery Services, Inc. v Kaplan, 2010 WL 144816 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2010) (more…)
Category: 9th, California, Federal Circuits, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | April 29, 2010
This case is extremely important as it stands for premise that the Plan expects premium payments and subro rights in exchange for paying benefits. Specifically, it states that subrogation defrays health insurance costs. The Defense made an argument stating that Zurich’s claim for reimbursement violates ERISA’s anti-discrimination provision but Court disagreed stating that plan language applied to all participants. This is a great case to read and cite as it brings us bases from many Circuits – even Shank. Enjoy!!
View the article here. Zurich Vs. O’Hara
Category: 11th, ERISA, Federal Circuits, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | April 23, 2010
I am on my way back from La Jolla, CA where I presented “New Methods for Maximizing the Identification & Successful Outcome Associated With Subrogation Events” at Axia’s 2010 Client Symposium held at The Lodge at Torrey Pines.
Click here to see my entire PowerPoint presentation.
Category: Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 22, 2010
By Cameron D. Gray, Esq., Boteler, Mahoney & Gray, LLP, Dallas, Texas
The United States Bankruptcy Code is intended, at least in part, to give a debtor in bankruptcy relief from the demands of its creditors so that it can regroup and potentially survive those claims. It does this by shifting the playing field and changing some of the rules. But, the game is not necessarily over and there is no reason to forfeit. (more…)
Category: Bankruptcy, Claims Procedures, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 22, 2010
By Daran Keifer and Kammy Poff
2009 was a banner year for those forces which seek to reduce, restrict or eliminate subrogation recoveries across all lines of business. NASP has been a flurry of legislative proposals effecting subrogation, most notably anti-subrogation bills, which affect our livelihood. Going into 2010, we need to understand the types of attacks and bills attempted this past year so we can prepare for new legislative activity regarding subrogation rights. (more…)
Category: Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 22, 2010
By Lindsey C. Bruning and Kristin C. Cummings, Zelle Hoffman Voelbel & Mason LLP, Dallas, Texas
New York, like many states, has a collateral source statute that prevents an injured party from recovering from a tortfeasor amounts that the injured party has already received from another source, such as insurance proceeds. (N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4545) CPLR 4545 requires a court to reduce any damages awarded to a plaintiff by the amount the plaintiff has received from any collateral source. (more…)
Category: New York, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 3, 2010
The Ohio Bar Association’s new Subrogation Committee held its first meeting today to try to formulate what the purpose of this committee is. The committee developed a working statement which states as follows: “Parties injured by a wrongdoer often are not receiving full or fair compensation in part because of subrogation laws of Ohio.” The Committee does contain one subrogation attorney Dennis Rehor of Cincinnati Insurance company. The Committee will attempt to reconvene to discuss this statement of principle on April 14th, 2010 at 10:30 A.M. The Ohio Bar Association hopes to have some proposals considered again at its meeting during its yearly convention in Dayton in early May. Ohio subrogation attorneys who are members of the OSBA need to make sure they check the OSBA’s website regularly as they hope to post information regarding the work of this Committee.
Category: Ohio, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 3, 2010
President-Elect Kenneth Levine and Amicus Committee Chair Daran Kiefer spent Monday February 22nd in Colorado with several NASP members and industry lobbyists testifying in opposition to House bill 1168. During the eight hours at the Capital, the parties supporting this bill agreed to several amendments. First, the bill was amended to eliminate property, workers’ compensation and auto subrogation from its reach. As for health subrogation, the proposed amendments require the injured party to provide information about the settlement and available limits. The amended bill calls for a rebuttable presumption of “full compensation” when insurance limits are not received. The amended bill also provides that a party’s full compensation value is equal to any jury award. The health subrogation industry will be impacted if this bill passes and becomes law in Colorado. The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure 10-0 with one abstention.
Category: Colorado, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 3, 2010
The South Dakota bill would prohibit a subrogated insurer from participating in any recovery for “bodily injury” or “property damage” unless or until the injured party is “made whole”. S.D. Senate bill 169 failed to pass the Senate on February 22, 2010. However, the Senate reconsidered the bill on February 23rd, 2010 which resulted in a tie. The tie was broken by the Senate President and Lt. Governor. The bill now heads to the House for consideration.
Category: South Dakota, Subrogation |
No Comments »
Tags:
