August 12, 2021 Teresa Kenyon, Esq. When handling a third-party liability case and you know your client had health insurance that paid the medical expenses, should you check to see if there is a lien interest on the settlement funds? Or maybe you have settled a case and you just received a notice letter from […]
Heidi Ahlborn was injured in a very serious car accident in January of 1996. At the time, she was a nineteen-year-old college student pursuing a degree in teaching. She suffered a catastrophic brain injury that left her incapable of finishing college and unable to care for or support herself in the future. When the Arkansas Department of Health tried to assert a lien against Ahlborn’s settlement, she sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who found in her favor.
As of April 1, 2011, a Responsible Reporting Entities/insurers (RRE), (liability insurer, self-insurer, no-fault insurer, and workers’ compensation carriers) must determine whether a claimant is a Medicare beneficiary (“entitled”) and if so, provide certain information to the secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “secretary”) when the claim is resolved. This is the so-called Mandatory Insurer Requirement, MIR for short.
For many years, personal injury cases have been resolved without consideration of Medicare’s secondary payer status even though since 1980 all forms of liability insurance have been primary to Medicare. At settlement, by judgment or through an award, an injury victim would receive damages for future medical expenses that were Medicare-covered. However, none of those settlement dollars would be used to pay for future Medicare-covered health needs. Instead, the burden would be shifted from the primary payer (liability insurer or workers’ compensation carrier) to Medicare. Injury victims would routinely provide their Medicare card to providers for injury-related care.
April 8, 2021 Rasa Fumagalli JD, MSCC, CMSP-F The nature of the Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) has evolved over the years since the 2001 Patel Memo. That evolution has seen us move from every WCMSA that met the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) internal workload review threshold being submitted to CMS for […]
What do you do when you settle a case like this where your client is on public assistance, there are allocation issues, settlement planning issues must be addressed, and there are liens to negotiate? Where can you “park” the money while you set up any necessary public benefit preservation trusts, determine allocation of the proceeds, figure out a financial plan, and negotiate the liens?
John Doe was a laborer since age eighteen, but when he was thirty, he was severely injured and became paralyzed. John didn’t have health insurance at the time of his accident, and the hospital applied for Medicaid on his behalf after getting injured. He qualified for Medicaid, since he had no real assets and no longer had an income. His family applied for Social Security Disability since he had worked enough quarters to be insured. John’s personal injury lawyer has settled the case for $1,000,000, which will help him pay for everything he now needs, but it is far less than what is needed to pay for all his future medical care. The question now is what to do with the settlement?
Mrs. Smith was moved to the ICU and no neurologic monitoring was performed that evening after being moved from the surgical suite. The next morning, Mrs. Smith was found to be quadriparetic. A suit was brought against multiple defendants with a significant seven-figure recovery secured. Mrs. Smith and her family had Medicaid coverage and SSI. She had also applied for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). At the time of settlement, there was no Medicare eligibility, since she had not been approved for SSDI and she wasn’t sixty-five.
In the confusing landscape of public benefits and planning issues that arise today for trial lawyers when settling catastrophic injury cases, finding your way can be a daunting task. In the paragraphs that follow, I’ll use Mrs. Smith’s real-world example to identify six key considerations to look out for when you’re settling a case for a catastrophically injured client.