ERISA Health Insurance Plans Empowered to Use Collection Agents to Seek Reimbursement and Subrogation



 Employees in Chicago now have even more reason to know about employer-provided health plans and their rights to reimbursement and subrogation. Should you experience any type of accident or injury caused by another party, you may need to use your own health insurance to cover the medical expenses incurred from the accident until obtaining a settlement from or judgment against the party causing the injury. Invariably, the health insurance company or fund will demand reimbursement for any expenses it covered that were caused by the other party. EB5 lawyer in Ohio. Following Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson and Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., plans have become particularly aggressive in seeking such reimbursement. Nobody previously considered your own health plan making a claim against your own automobile insurance policy, though. But that might change after a recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shaffer v. Rawlings Co.

The Shaffer court rejected an employee's claim that ERISA prevented her health insurance provider from enforcing its reimbursement and subrogation rights by demanding funds from the employee's own auto insurer before she had even recovered from any third party for her injuries. The court also rejected the argument that ERISA 502(a) would prohibit the enforcement of a subrogation provision, noting that section 502(a) applied specifically to judicial remedies, not substantive or contractual remedies like a plan's subrogation provision. Ultimately, the fact that an employee does not have possession of the funds does not impede the collection process.

Plans nationwide will likely start to take the sort of action that Ms. Shaffer's employer just did. If other jurisdictions follow the Shaffer decision, this could mean that the unfortunate repercussions related to a car accident may only be further aggravated in the event that an employee has had to have his or her health plan advance money to cover the resulting medical expenses. If you are unsure whether or not your plan provides for an enforceable subrogation agreement in the event of an accident or if you are simply interested in better understanding the rights of both you and your insurer in the event of a non-work related accident, speaking with an ERISA attorney (link to you site) is always a good idea.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

Why Your Executive Employment Agreement May Reference Dodd-Frank Clawback Policy

Изображение
 Executives in Chicago may be puzzled to begin seeing vague references to new compensation clawback policies in their executive employment agreements. Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requires, as a condition of the employer's securities being listed on a national securities exchange or association (such as NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), if the employer must restate any financial statements because of "material noncompliance" with the securities laws, then the issuer will recoup from any current or former executive officer during the 3 years preceding the date the employer had to restate those financial statements all amounts paid in incentive based compensation that exceeds what would have been paid under the restated financials. Executive Compensation lawyers who advise employers mostly agree the executive employment agreements need to mention the clawback policy. However, the employers' lawyers advise to avoid being specific about the terms of the clawba
Далее...

Don't Forget to Update Your Beneficiary Designations on Employer Sponsored Retirement or Life Insurance Plans

Изображение
  Executives and employees participating in employee benefit plans in Chicago received a reminder this week about why it is important to keep track of your benefit plans' beneficiary designations, and update those designations when appropriate. Many people may think they can enter into binding agreements with others, such as family members or former spouses, about entitlement to or waiver of benefits under an employee benefit plan, like a pension or life insurance. Lawyer office in Ohio . However, if the plan is one covered by ERISA, those agreements, even if part of an agreed court order, will have no bearing on what the benefit plan administrator does with any proceeds if inconsistent with the beneficiary designation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated this point in Jackman Financial Corp. v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 10-2112, Slip Op. (7th Cir. May 31, 2011). In that case, Mr. Torrence was a participant in a group term life insurance policy of
Далее...

Courts Still at Odds over What Language Grants Discretion to an ERISA Plan Administrator

Изображение
  Employees in Chicago that are participants in any employee benefit plans should pay attention to the growing divide among Courts of Appeals over whether "satisfactory to us" is language in a plan sufficient to vest the plan administrator with discretion to interpret plan terms and make benefit determinations. When the administrator has such discretion, a court reviewing the administrator's decision will do so under an abuse of discretion standard--whether the decision was reasonable, not whether it was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the ranks of courts in holding such language requiring a participant to provide proof of a loss "satisfactory to us" does not confer discretion on the administrator of the plan. Viera v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 10-22810, Slip Op. at 19 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011). Lawyer office in Ohio . The Third Circuit joined the ranks of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding
Далее...