Tag: Liability Claims

  • Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    On-Demand Webinar

    Includes

    • Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals.
    • CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules).
    • For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com
    • The complete Power Point presentation.
    • Continued access to the complete recording for later use.
    • Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers.

    KEY POINTS

    • What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties?
    • What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits?
    • How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations?
    • What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls?

    Statutes Discussed

    Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22)

    Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651)

    Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095)

    Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729)

    Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.)

    Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)]

    On Demand Registration

    Lien Resolution
    Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!)

    On Demand | Recorded September 2020

    It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation.

    Franklin P. Solomon, Esq.
    Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm 

    A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys in defending against claims by health plans and government benefits programs seeking payment out of tort recoveries. Among his significant cases in the field, Mr. Solomon argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in Perreira v. Rediger, 169 N.J. 399 (2001), obtaining a decision which prohibited health insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds’ tort recoveries. He was plaintiffs’ counsel in Levine v. United Healthcare, 402 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2005), a federal class action challenging reimbursement claims of ERISA-governed health plans. He was also appellate counsel in Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company, 761 F.3d (2d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging New York insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds, and was plaintiffs’ counsel in Taransky v. Sebelius, 760 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging Medicare’s claims for reimbursement out of tort recoveries. More recently Mr. Solomon was appellate counsel in Arnone v. Aetna, 860 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2017), a decision which subjected ERISA plan disability insurers to state anti-subrogation law. Prior to opening his own firm, Mr. Solomon’s practice included 20 years of litigating mass tort and individual personal injury claims on behalf of plaintiffs.

    Brett Newman
    Founder, Newman Settlement Services Group

    Brett Newman is known nationally by plaintiff attorneys for his expertise on claims avoidance and reduction. Recognizing the ever-growing nature of lien resolution and the ever-increasing associated liability, Brett established Newman Settlement Services Group to assist both individual claimants of personal injury lawsuits and mass tort claimants in the protection of their proceeds and government benefits. 

  • Charlie Kingdollar on Sexual Abuse Claims

    Charlie Kingdollar on Sexual Abuse Claims

    Charlie Kingdollar on Sexual Abuse Claims and Litigation: Their Impact on the Insurance Industry

    Abstract
    The statistics surrounding childhood sexual abuse and molestation are staggering. Many make headlines such as the cases brought against clergy, athletic coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and actors and movie producers. This article attempts to size the impact of these cases on the insurance industry, and what measures are being taken that will allow more lawsuits to be filed on behalf of victims years after they were abused or molested.

    Author
    Charlie Kingdollar recently retired after 40 years with General Reinsurance Corp., where he was Vice President and Emerging Issues Officer. He is widely considered to be among the best resources for new liability risks, even called by one colleague as a “prescient and gifted industry futurist.” I recommend you follow him on LinkedIn. –Tom Hagy

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • Vince Vitkowsky on Insurance Coverage for Civil Unrest

    Vince Vitkowsky on Insurance Coverage for Civil Unrest

    Civil unrest. Peaceful protests. Massive marches. Riots. Looting.  Which of these things are not like the other? Recent social outrage over police shootings of Black people — these events in particular — have sent people to the streets by hundreds of thousands. In some cases these constitutionally protected activities are followed by property damage, injury and death. Observers continue to debate who is responsible for the violence.  Whatever the answer, as a very practical matter, someone has to pay for the property damage.

    Join me for my conversation with Vince Vitkowsky of Gfeller Laurie LLP.  Vince  possesses deep knowledge of insurance coverage matters, representing carriers in a variety of areas, e.g. cyber risk, data privacy, general liability, directors and officers liability, health, and more. He combines his experience as a veteran insurance and reinsurance lawyer with a strong background in terrorism and national security law.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Vince is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    I hope you enjoy the interview, and how deftly we obscured the fact that Vince lives in New York City.

    Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

    An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of  Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm  A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]

    Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

    REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them.  Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]

    The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

    HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]

    The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • Stigma and Shame Hampered AIDS Treatment in the 80s, and Opioid Treatment Today

    By Tom Hagy

    I worked in the press office of the New Jersey Department of Health in the 1980s. Aside from hazardous waste, asbestos, cancer, a chemical fire or two, the annual influenza “crisis” and the occasional salmonella outbreak, AIDS was one of the most urgent, frightening and misunderstood health issues of the day. The U.S. epidemic began with one reported case in 1981, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and grew to an astounding 36.9 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 2017 as reported by the World Health Organization.

    The office I worked in was tasked with providing information to the public and members of the press. At the time many public health professionals believed — as is the case with many diseases — that education on how to prevent transmission of the HIV virus would all but eliminate its spread. All we had to do was educate the public and, most importantly, the high-risk groups. Education is a common weapon in fighting disease.  It’s why we wash our hands, cough into our elbows and try not to put salt on absolutely everything we put in our mouths.

    In the early 1980s the “problem” was that the high-risk groups were having homosexual sex and injecting drugs — not typical themes addressed by politicians. Early on more conservative policymakers didn’t want to distribute pamphlets on methods of having safe homosexual sex — such as mutual masturbation and condom use during anal sex — or exercising hygienic methods of shooting heroin. (The state, did, however, have a needle-exchange program to keep addicts from re-using syringes.)

    I recall the frustration of at least one of the state’s public health professionals and AIDS awareness groups who strongly advocated for education — and the more specific the better. The political reality — that the state could at least slow down the epidemic through education but policymakers were not anxious to put their names on “how to” guides for gay sex and illegal drug use — troubled me. At first I didn’t understand it. Then I did. And yet again, I really didn’t. What about our mission of ensuring public health and safety? Well, gradually public health physicians prevailed and policymakers got it.  If you look at the NJ DOH website today you will find all kinds of information on prevention and treatment of the disease. They offer HIV Care and Support Services and educational events. They continue to have a syringe access program with listings of locations where drug users can safely dispose of dirty injection equipment and walk away with clean syringes and needles.

    AIDS would go on to claim the lives of 448,000 people in the U.S. by the end of 2000. Thanks to medical advancements — and educational programs and services offered by non-governmental and governmental organizations, like the NJ DOH — the rate of deaths slowed. Still, in 2017, 940,000 people died from HIV-related illnesses worldwide, according to WHO.

    The social stigma of homosexuality and, relevant to this post, drug use, most certainly played a role in allowing the disease to spread. The same is true today when it comes to the opioid crisis. According to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation website there are insufficient resources dedicated to confronting addiction due in part to public stigma.

    A Moral Issue or a Health Problem?

    “For generations, [the] combination of personal shame and public stigma has produced tremendous obstacles to addressing the problem of alcoholism and other drug addiction in America. Today, the stigma of addiction is seen as a primary barrier to effective addiction prevention, treatment and recovery efforts at the individual, family, community and societal levels,” the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation site reads. “Addiction stigma prevents too many people from getting the help they need. Drug and alcohol addiction is too often seen as a moral issue or a criminal matter rather than a health problem. Many public policies and practices related to housing, education, jobs, voting rights and insurance discriminate against individuals who have addiction, even after they’ve established long-term recovery.”

    The CDC reported that in 2016 there were 63,600 drug overdoses — a jump of 21% in one year. Opioids are currently the main driver of drug overdoses, comprising 42,000 of the annual total. The states of Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania see the most opioid overdoses.

    As reported by NPR last year, the crisis has reversed the trend of lengthening life expectancies which fell two years in a row. It was 78.9 in 2014; in 2016 it fell to 78.6. The last time it fell was in 1993 due to the AIDS epidemic, but hasn’t fallen two years in a row since the 1960s, NPR reported based on government statistics.

    The Monetary Cost

    In addition to the toll on life and health, the opioid crisis is costly.  The U.S. Department of Health puts the economic costs at $504 billion, which includes  healthcare costs, criminal justice costs, lost productivity due to addiction and incarceration, and more. The CDC puts the annual cost of the opioid crisis at $75 billion.

    Efforts to recover these costs include litigation. From there, defendants turn to the insurers where another layer of dispute arises.

    Speaking on an HB webinar titled Insurance Coverage Issues Arising from Opioid Litigation and Investigations, policyholder attorney Bernard Bell of Miller Friel PLLC said lawsuits fall into three categories: 1) state and local governments, and tribes, are suing to recover expenses associated with their response to opioid abuse; 2) suits against manufacturers for alleged gross misrepresentation of the risks and against distributors for failing to monitor suspicious orders; and 3) individuals suing drug makers and distributors for their addictions.

    There are 2,000 lawsuits pending, with 1,200 of them in MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland. Plaintiff attorneys have recently said that a mandatory class maybe be the only way to resolve the litigation.

    A new class action lawsuit filed in November 2018 in West Virginia seeks to represent children exposed to opioids in utero. According to Top Class Actions, the suit alleges that in 2017, 50 out of every 1,000 babies born in West Virginia were born addicted to opioids.

    Many of the costs associated with the crisis “don’t always fit very well with specific losses that insurance policies are designed to cover,” said insurance industry attorney Laura Foggan of Crowell & Moring LLP.

    For that reason, and with so much at stake, so much liability, and so many deep pockets, we can expect policyholders and insurers to battle the issue out in the courts.


    Foggan and Bell addressed the insurance aspects of the litigation during a recent HB webinar, titled Insurance Coverage Issues Arising from Opioid Litigation and Investigations. The program is now available on-demand. Click to register.

  • Crowell & Moring on Insurance for Autonomous Vehicles Accidents

    “As responsibility for accidents shifts away from drivers and towards the companies that design, manufacture, and maintain autonomous vehicles, the pool of companies potentially liable for accidents will deepen.Companies need to consider potential liability risk when designing autonomous vehicle-related systems and partnering with other companies.”

    Another good piece from the team Crowell & Moring LLP 

  • Miller Friel: Opioid Suppliers Are Right to Expect Insurance Coverage

    An excerpt from a post by Bernard Bell of Miller Friel PLLC

    “Because insurers are facing a difficult time evading coverage for opioid claims, they are raising all sorts of non-contractual defenses to avoid coverage, including a ‘social insurance’ argument they have raised in the past.

    “If past public health crises are prologue, these arguments will run something like this: Holding insurers responsible to pay for the costs of public services, including health care, will transform private party liability insurance into social insurance to underwrite public health epidemics caused by all manner of ills.  According to insurers, this will, at a minimum, increase the cost of liability insurance, and financially harm liability insurers, who have not priced this risk into their premiums.  Moreover, holding insurers liable to pay will shift costs away from those best equipped to address the social problem; the companies that supply the opioid products.

    “These arguments are inconsistent with insurance law, which permits parties to freely contract to cover risks, and which place the burden on insurers to pay for insured risk, even if they made an error in underwriting.  Courts interpret insurance contracts according to their language and construe them against insurers if they are ambiguous, and in favor of an insureds’ reasonable expectations of coverage.

    “Moreover, to the extent courts are inclined to look past contract language when construing insurance policies, the social arguments cut in favor of coverage, not against it, because  liability insurance is designed to perform risk management, and deterrence and compensation functions of insurance are important to the social functioning and ordering of society. … These social purposes are especially easy to grasp in the context of pharmaceutical companies that develop and bring to market countless products, including opioid pain medicine, that can relieve human pain and suffering. These companies bought and paid for liability insurance to manage the risks inherent in their business. They are entitled to enforce the promises made to them by those insurance companies that accepted their risks and their premiums.”