Skip to main content

A Federal District Court Approves Medicare Set-Aside

On July 28, 2011, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in
Schexnayder v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83687) approved a Medicare Set-Aside in a personal injury case brought in the District Court under its diversity jurisdiction.  The matter was settled and a Medicare Set-Aside specialist determined that the appropriate Medicare Set-Aside from the settlement was $239,253.84.  The matter was submitted to CMS who took no action, leaving the parties at a loss on how to obtain approval of the Medicare Set-Aside amount, which was a condition of the settlement.  The plaintiff and defendants made a joint application to the court for approval and the U.S. Magistrate ordered service to be made on the Secretary of Health and Human Services for an evidentiary hearing that was ordered to be conducted in order to determine approval or modification of the proposed set-aside amount.  Health and Human Services advised the court that it would not participate in the evidentiary hearing.  This left the court to take testimony and receive submissions based upon which Magistrate Judge Hanna made findings of fact that approved the set-aside amount. 

Obviously, the federal court can exercise its jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services.  The parties to this litigation acted in the manner that has been advocated consistently, namely that the interests of Medicare be considered actively by both parties in a cooperative manner when reaching a settlement or, for that matter, paying a judgment.  Their cooperation allowed the federal court to exercise its jurisdiction over Health and Human Services and issue an order which, in all likelihood, will be binding upon the United States government, thereby relieving the parties of any further uncertainty with regard to Medicare issues.  This can only happen in the federal system, as state courts do not have jurisdiction over the United States government.  This may be yet one more reason to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the court when appropriate so that these issues may be determined in a manner that satisfies the interests of all parties.  It is significant that CMS again declined to cooperate with the parties in reaching the Medicare Set-Aside amount and, it is further significant that the set-aside amount did not contain a reduction for procurement costs or attorney’s fees.  This appears to be in conformance with the regulations promulgated under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to contact me, you may write to me at miamipandi@comcast.net or motero@houckanderson.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more