President Obama Signs Bipartisan Medicare Law

Just a few days ago, President Obama signed H.R. 1845 (112th), the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act, which was introduced by Reps. Tim Murphy (R-PA) and Ron Kind (D-WI) in the House and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rob Portman (R-OH), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Richard Burr (R-NC) in the Senate.

The legislation was a bipartisan solution to streamline the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) system, to ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities get timely assistance and taxpayers are repaid millions of dollars every year.

The SMART Act is seen as a victory for senior advocates,

We will see how effective SMART is, as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must still work to eliminate confusion and uncertainty by providing clear, efficient and definitive information to seniors.

Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP):

  • The MSP process ensures Medicare is reimbursed for medical bills that are the responsibility of another party – such as an insurer or negligent party.
  • A senior or person with disabilities who has been injured, and later obtains recourse through the legal system, often cannot access their settlement until Medicare is reimbursed for all medical costs.
  • The current MSP system is inefficient and slow to return dollars to the Medicare Trust Fund, which is funded by tax payer money.
  • It can take years for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to report reimbursement amounts to beneficiaries and CMS can seek multiple reimbursement amounts over time, providing further delay and uncertainty.

The SMART Act will:

  • Require CMS to maintain a secure web portal to access claims and reimbursement amounts in a timely fashion.
    • CMS must upload care payments they disperse within 15 days with the required information about the payment.
  • Streamline the process of obtaining reimbursement amounts.
    • Medicare beneficiaries must notify CMS they are anticipating a settlement no more than 120 days beforehand.
    • CMS then has 65 days to ensure the web portal is up-to-date, but may request an additional 30 days, if needed.
    • Reimbursement amounts are reliable if downloaded from the web portal within three days of settlement.
  • Provide a process and timeline for discrepancies and appeals.
    • Medicare beneficiaries can provide documentation for discrepancies on the web portal to CMS.
    • CMS has 11 days to respond to discrepancies.
    • If CMS does not respond in 11 days, the amount calculated by the beneficiary is the correct amount. 
    • An additional appeal process must be established by CMS for reimbursements it attempts to collect from insurance plans.
  • Create a threshold for collecting any payment amounts by CMS that are below the cost it incurs to collect an average claim.
  • Readjust the penalty for reporting errors by insurers based on the violation.
  • Ensure greater privacy for beneficiaries by no longer requiring use of full social security or health id claim numbers.
  • Create a three year limit for CMS to seek any repayments beginning from when they were informed of an anticipated settlement.

New Roadside Assistance & Insurance Offered to Bicyclists

As of July 1, 2012, AAA will offer its Washington and Idaho members emergency roadside serviceAAA for their bicycles. This benefit will cover AAA members in Washington, Oregon, Idaho as well as British Columbia.

Just like with AAA's roadside service for motor vehicles, this service assists members with a bicycle disabled because of a mechanical failure. A member would call the AAA hotline to obtain service. When assistance arrives, a member can be transported along with the bicylce to a safe location within the distance allowed by the membership level.  

On its website, AAA's VP of Member Services for AAA Washington says, We are excited to extend our legendary emergency road service to bicycles. People who live in the Northwest are avid outdoors enthusiasts and have an affinity for cycling. We think our members will embrace this new service and have a new level of comfort as they travel long distances from home knowing that AAA will be there if their bicycle becomes disabled.”

Additional, AAA of WA offers new options for bicycle insurance. 

This can only be good news to those many AAA members in WA State who also enjoy cycling. At SKWC, we often see bike accidents with severe injuries and lack of insurance coverage.

Third Circuit Issues Precential Opinion In Favor of the Insured

In a unanimous decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion for US Airways v. McCutchen. A key takeaway of this recent decision is that it emphatically limits insurers from reaching into beneficiaries' pockets to take money that does not rightfully belong to them. The 3rd Circuit calls such attempts an inappropriate windfall for insurers.US Airways.jpg

The insured, Mr. McCutchen, was seriously injured in an automobile accident, in which two others were killed. McCutchen sued the driver of the car that caused the accident. However, as that driver had limited coverage and as three others involved were either killed or seriously injured, he settled for only $10,000.

With his attorneys' help, McCutchen received another $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage for a total third party recovery of $110,000. After a 40% attorneys' fees and expenses, he netted less than $66,000. Nonetheless, US Airways demanded reimbursement for the entire $66,866 that it had paid for his medical bills. (US Airways v McCutchen 3rd COA OPINION.pdf)

In a nutshell, the 3rd Circuit flatly rejected the idea that ERISA plans must always be enforced according to their terms. Referring to the recent United States Supreme Court opinion, Cigna v. Amara, the US Airways court explains

”[T]he importance of the written benefit plan is not inviolable, but is subject—based upon equitable doctrines and principles—to modification and, indeed, even equitable reformation under § 502(a)(3). 131 S. Ct. at 1879 (finding that the District Court’s “reformation of the terms of the plan, in order to remedy the false or misleading information CIGNA provided . . . . [was within] a traditional power of an equity court”).

. . . We do not suggest that US Airways' conduct was fraudulent or dishonest in the way that Cigna's was, but equitable principles can apply even where no one has committed a wrong. (emphasis added).

Instead, it sided with McCutchen. McCutchen argued that it would be inequitable to reimburse US Airways in full, when he had not yet been made whole. US Airways had never contributed to his legal fees/expenses, and it would have been unjustly enriched if it could recover without any allowance for thoses costs. US Airways would effectively have been reaching into his picket, putting him in a worse position than if he had not recovered $100,000 for third party. 

Squarely addressing US Airways' claim, which is typical of insurers arguing for subrogation rights, it stated, 

US Airways cannot plausibly claim it charged lower premiums because it anticipated a windfall.

The 3rd Circuit adopted exactly one of Paul Stritmatter's arguments for ERISA equitable defenses in his booklet. Great minds think alike.

For more illuminating points about subrogation, check out Paul's website and blog, FightSubro.com.

U.S. Chamber's Hypocrisy Exposed: Do As I Say, Not As I Sue

New report shows hypocrisy of Institute for Legal Reform's corporate board members that aggressively litigate while blocking justice for everyday Americans

Washington, D.C. --As the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) holds its annual summit - a strategy session on eliminating Americans' access to the civil justice system - a new report exposes ILR's corporate board members that hypocritically use the courts for their own gain against competitors, customers and even each othersay_sue_coverFIN.jpg_sized.jpg.

In its newest report, Do As I Say, Not As I Sue, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) exposes the hypocrisy of 10 ILR board members that regularly use the legal system to advance their own agendas, while at the same time advocating legislation that would close the courthouse doors to anyone who would hold them accountable for their own wrongdoing.

"These corporations, like all Americans, have a right to seek justice through the legal system," said AAJ President Gary M. Paul. "What makes their actions shameful and hypocritical is that these companies are members of ILR's board for the sole purpose of denying American workers and consumers this same right."

One ILR board member highlighted in the report is Honeywell International, which has regularly taken competitors to court, but would prefer not to be held accountable for distributing defective body armor to law enforcement personnel across the country, or downplaying the dangers of asbestos exposure.

In return for its financial contributions to ILR, Honeywell has received policy and public relations help when its negligence has been uncovered. Four days after an Illinois jury delivered a multi-million dollar verdict against Honeywell for conspiring to hide the dangers of asbestos, ILR issued a press release stating that the decision "confirms a troubling trend in the State of Illinois where there is a hostile ligation environment." Additionally, the Madison County Record, an Illinois-based propaganda-as-news outlet fully owned by ILR, featured an article headlined, "McLean County Continues Inching Closer to Becoming a 'Judicial Hellhole.'"

The irony does not stop with Honeywell - AAJ's report also highlights the litigation hypocrisy of ILR board members FedEx, Dow Chemical Company, General Motors Corporation, Caterpillar, State Farm, Koch Industries, Abbott Laboratories, Prudential and Johnson & Johnson.

Online ads will run this week on major news sites and blogs to promote the report, Do As I Say, Not As I Sue: Exposing the Lawsuit-Happy Hypocrites of U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, which can be found at www.justice.org/USChamber.

Don't miss "Hot Coffee!"

This weekend I got to see my last movie at the Seattle International Film Festival. It was "Hot Coffee," a documentary by Susan Saladoff. It made me incredibly proud to be in this profession and to work with some of the best trial lawyers in the country.cropped-hotcoffee.jpg

The movie is an absolute must-see. Period. Full stop. When the DVD comes out (later this summer), run, don't walk to buy it. Better yet, you can see it if you have HBO later this month. It is not a dry, boring documentary: Al Franken and Paul Grisham keep things lively.

Although I work for a plaintiffs law firm, even I had misconceptions about the infamous "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds. This documentary, however, is not just about opening everyone's eyes to the jaw dropping injuries that Stella Liebeck, the then 79-year old woman sustained from spilling some scalding hot coffee on herself. It reveals how McDonalds had previously received 700 complaints about the ridiculously hot coffee.

Moreover, the film shows how corporations have spent many hundreds of million dollars on distorting the truth about tort claims -- from "tort reform" to caps on damages. Trial lawyers are conveniently pegged as the villains, while insurance companies are portrayed as the victims: a comedy and utter tragedy at the same time.

A doctor specializing in burn injuries explains in "Hot Coffee," that the holding temperature for coffee was so hot that at best, if the coffee touched one's skin for a few seconds, one would suffer 3rd degree burns. Regardless, McDonalds chose to ignore the obvious threat to its customers' safety until brave Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold them accountable. 

The film also features a couple of other poignant stories: One, about an ex-Halliburton worker who was brutally raped by her coworkers in Iraq; but denied the ability to sue her employer/employees thanks to a mandatory arbitration clause. The other story is a needlessly tragic situation, where one twin boy was brain damaged in utero, because of a negligent doctor. That family was essentially robbed of the jury verdict due to the state's cap on damages.

Buy this DVD for all of your friends, family, neighbors, etc., so that they learn how corporations are attempting to dismantle the civil justice system. 

The number one reason for the health care crisis: health insurers

2003838204.jpgDespite the historic recession, health insurance rates are sky rocketing.  Our small group has seen our Regence premiums grow 150 percent over the past decade.  As bad as that is, it is less than the 201 percent increase by Premera.

Mike Kreidler, our Insurance Commissioner is one of the best public officials our state has ever had.  He is requesting the legislature to enact HB 1301 (SB 5247).  This would allow him to consider a not-for-profit health insurer's surplus when regulating its rates.

The insurers are up in arms.  They say consumers need "strong muscular companies."  They use scare tactics by alluding to possible earthquakes, epidemics, and President Obama's health reform.  But according to The Seattle Times they have piled up $2.4 Billion in surplus - triple what it was ten years ago.

No one can afford to send more lobbyists to the halls of our government than insurance corporations.  But we the people can join together to support Kreidler and the legislators who will vote for this bill. 

We need to stop the madness.  Insurers need to be regulated.  Enough is enough.

 

Defendant Tries To Dodge Responsibility Although Its Driver Was High

By Karen Koehler

In the evening of October 5, 2006, you have a few drinks and smoke a bowl of marijuana.   The next morning you get up early for your new job driving a truck for a window company.  What better way for you to start your day, than to smoke another bowl as you are walking out the door.  In fact, you like this routine so much that you start off every morning this way.

You get to work, get in your truck and head out.  In the middle of making deliveries, you decide to turn around.  You are on highway 99 and make a left turn intending to go around the block.  All of a sudden, your truck feels like it’s been struck by a bomb.  It lurches forward.  And you sit in your seat thinking.  Uh Oh.

You are scared to get out of your truck.  You have a pretty good idea what you’re going to see when you do.  You sit in your seat and get up the nerve to call your boss.  By now you can see other people rushing around and assume someone else has called 911.   Time seems to take forever and you don’t know how long you sit there.   Eventually you get out of your truck, walk around the right front end and stand there, looking down the length of it.  You can see the people huddling around something that looks like the back of a car.  The front of it is under the truck. 

Photo of Maislen's Car After Crash

You don’t walk up to see if you can help.  You don’t want to see whatever is in that wrecked red pile of shredded metal.  You stay right where you are until you can hear the sirens.  You back away.  Away from the dread of knowing that there is someone half under your truck.  You can barely see his outline.  And that’s the last time you ever see Marc Maislen.

Years pass, and it is April 2010 and you are in court.  Mr. Maislen has sued you.  The company’s insurance company does not offer enough to settle the case.  You are facing a full jury trial.  The insurance company at first tried to claim that Mr. Maislen was at fault.  For years, they denied that you were responsible.  Even though you gave the police your pot and pipe that were in your coat pocket.  Even though you admitted that you were high.  Even though you were convicted of a crime and went to jail.   The insurance company tried to blame him.  Until a few months before trial.  They decided they better admit fault.  They told the judge they would agree you caused the wreck.  But they also wanted to keep the jury from ever knowing that you were high.    

Juries are almost never told when a defendant is drunk or high so long as they admit fault.  But this case is different.  Mr. Maislen has post traumatic stress disorder.  Knowing that you were high when you almost killed him, has made him more fearful of driving.  It caused him panic attacks.  Judge Gonzales rules the jury needs to know the reasons why Mr. Maislen claims an injury, since your insurance company is fighting this.  And so on the first day of trial, the jury is told of your behavior.

Your insurance company is very upset.  They cannot believe the jury is being told you were high.  This almost never happens.   Instead of being able to have the jury look suspiciously at Mr. Maislen for bringing a lawsuit.  They are looking at you. 

Over the next several weeks, Mr. Maislen’s attorneys Karen Koehler and Mimy Bailey tell the jury the story of Mr. Maislen’s life.  All the bones and joints that were broken, the nerves that were blown away, the traumtic brain injury, and the emotional injuries.  Mr. Maislen was beloved by many.  Over thirty witnesses testify for him.  The insurance company hires experts to minimize Mr. Maislen’s claims.  But at the end of the day, the jury has the final say.  And they say that Mr. Maislen deserves a verdict for full justice.

The Insurance Industry's Propaganda Machine

One of my pet peeves is the attitude of people about personal injury lawsuits.  So many are critical of such suits because of the propaganda machine of the insurance industry and the Chambers of Commerce that have filled their heads with so many lies.  But many don’t seem to understand the consequences of denying people a recovery for their injuries caused by the negligent conduct of others.

In many instances where people have suffered severe injuries as a result of the negligence of others, their only hope of a private method of compensation is a lawsuit. They have staggering medical bills; they cannot work because of their injuries.   If they are denied a recovery, their only recourse is to have the government pay the bills.  So this propaganda scheme is really one of transferring the cost of injuries from negligent conduct from the insurance companies who were paid a premium to cover these risks, and instead transfer the cost to the taxpayer.  Taxpayers should be offended!

So the next time you hear an offensive story about a personal injury lawsuit, look at the source of the story and determine the true facts.  It is probably an insurance company that is trying to get the taxpayers to pay for the bill so that they can keep the insurance premium.