What Every Injured Person Needs to Know about ERISA Governed Health Insurance Plans


 

My office receives calls daily from employees, executives and managers in Chicago who claim their health insurance will not pay for a procedure. Some of the time, the plan does not even dispute that the claimed treatment or procedure is covered by the plan. So why won't the plan pay? The answer is two words: reimbursement and subrogation. The plan claims that it once paid benefits due to an injury caused by a third party and you recovered for that injury. I have seen plans withhold benefits years after the purported overpayment.

After Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson and Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., many plans have gotten particularly aggressive in enforcing subrogation and reimbursement rights. Nearly all plans include language to the effect that if the plan pays benefits for an injury caused by a third party, and you recover anything from the third party, by judgment or settlement, then the plan must be reimbursed. They also often state that in enforcing the reimbursement, the plan can withhold future benefits. Marital property division. Personal injury lawyers are familiar with plans asserting liens on judgments in personal injury cases where the plan expended money for health care caused by the third party. But just because there is no lien in your personal injury or workers compensation case does not mean you won't have to pay the plan back someday, especially if the plan is self funded or a collectively bargained multi-employer health plan.

If you have a personal injury or workers compensation case pending in Illinois or the Midwest, the best course of action is to be proactive and learn whether your ERISA covered health plan paid any benefits that can be recovered from the third party. Even if you settle the case for less than your actual damages, the plan could enforce full repayment. Consult an ERISA lawyer sooner, rather than later, and avoid the later hassles of your plan withholding benefits.

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...