Complex Business Litigation Archives

Complex Post-Settlement Liens | Webinar | July 26, 2018 | 2pm

July 4th, 2018|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Law Firm Operations|Tags: Lien Resolution, Litigation & appeals|

[two-fifths-first] Date: July 26, 2018 Time: 2pm-3:30pm Fee: $125 Register and pay online or contact Kathleen.McFadden@LitigationConferences.com (484) 324-2755 x2000 Speakers Franklin Solomon Solomon Law Firm Brett Newman Lien Resolution Group [/two-fifths-first] [three-fifths] Complex Post-Settlement Liens Join us for a highly practical session with two deeply experienced practitioners who will share their insights and answer your questions on issues that impact the cases on your desk today. Learn about the newest case law, agency positions and litigation tactics affecting health and disability plan reimbursement claims, including how to protect your clients and your practice in this rapidly developing area. Our speakers will discuss: Medicare Advantage Plans Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) Plans Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Claims Medicare set-asides TRICARE Veterans Administration Claims Speaker Bios Franklin P. Solomon | Solomon Law Firm Franklin Solomon has a nationwide practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare lien/reimbursement claims. He represents personal injury victims and their attorneys in defending against claims by health plans and government benefits programs seeking payment out of tort recoveries. Most recently, he was plaintiffs’ counsel in two federal appellate court cases decided last summer: Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company, ___ F.3d ___, (2d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging New York insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds, and Taransky v. Sec. U.S. Dept. of [...]

Congressional Cannabis Proposal Would Can Criminalization

June 8th, 2018|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes|Tags: Cannabis, Compliance, Corporate & Securities, Drug Laws, Emerging Litigation & Risk|

Could this be the thing that brings the parties together? Here is a quote from an article written for Forbes.com by freelance writer Janet Burns. [Jolene Forman, staff attorney at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance] called the bill a "first step," and noted, “This bipartisan proposal clears the way for states to develop their own marijuana policies without fear of federal intervention. This will give states more opportunity to restore communities that have borne the brunt of the drug war and mass criminalization." So far, 30 states, Washington, DC and the U.S. territories of Guam and Puerto Rico have enacted medical marijuana legislation, while estimates suggest that 63 million Americans reside in areas where anyone over 21 may now legally possess the plant.

Miller Friel: Opioid Suppliers Are Right to Expect Insurance Coverage

June 1st, 2018|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, Insurance|Tags: Drug Laws, Drugs & Devices, Insurance Companies, Liability Claims, Professional Liability, Risk Management|

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 [...]