Supreme Court Provides More Guidance Regarding Health Plan Subrogation Claims

Snell & Wilmer

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court handed down yet another case addressing health plan subrogation.

From the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. (547 U.S. 356) (2006), we know that a medical plan may use an “equitable lien” to recover on a subrogation claim as long as the plan can find a specific fund or asset traceable to the settlement upon which to place the equitable lien. On the other hand, Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002), teaches that a medical plan may not enforce a subrogation clause by simply pursuing a claim for monetary damages.

The Supreme Court’s most recent foray into the morass of subrogation claims, Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), provides health plans with a lesson regarding the importance of vigilantly pursuing the plan’s right to settlement proceeds. Montanile involved a fairly typical factual situation. Mr. Montanile was seriously injured in an automobile accident. The plan paid more than $120,000 in medical expenses and sought to recover that amount from a $500,000 settlement. When settlement negotiations between the participant and the plan broke down, the participant’s attorney notified the plan that the balance of the settlement proceeds (less attorneys’ fees and advances) would be distributed to Mr. Montanile unless the plan objected within 14 days. No objection was received and the attorney distributed the balance of the settlement proceeds to Mr. Montanile.

Six months later, the plan sought to enforce its subrogation claims. Unlike the participant in Sereboff, though, Mr. Montanile apparently did not deposit the settlement proceeds in a separate account, and, instead, spent a good portion of the settlement proceeds on non-traceable, consumable items.

The Supreme Court ruled that to the extent that the settlement proceeds had been spent on non-traceable consumable items, the plan was left without any recourse. Although the plan presumably could have traced the settlement proceeds to a specific bank, investment or other account had it acted promptly, the plan could not assert a lien against non-traceable, general assets.

The lesson to be learned from Montanile is fairly simple. To the extent that a plan continues to believe that subrogation makes sense, it needs to assert its claims vigorously and promptly. Once the settlement proceeds have been dissipated, the plan has no recourse against the participant.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.