MEDICAID LIENS - Fergeson v. IHB Realty Inc. In this case, plaintiff moved to modify a prior court order awarding $40,000 to New York City in full satisfaction of its asserted medicaid lien arguing the settlement should be set aside based on the recent ruling in Ark. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Ahlborn asserting the holding made it clear the federal medicaid law and its anti-lien provision prohibited the recovery of medicaid liens from torts proceeds exceeding the medical expenses portion. The court stated the facts of this case did not run afoul of Ahlborn, noting all concerned parties were aware the matter was sent to arbitration with the court reserving the power to set liens. It noted it was clear liens would be deducted from the settlement regardless of any specific designation. The court directed counsel to negotiate a lesser compromise figure with the Department of Social Services which it agreed to set as the medicaid lien portion of the award in its order, and the amount of the reduced lien became the designated medical costs allocation in the prior settlement order, and pursuant to Ahlborn, the only amount recoverable by DSS. Thus, plaintiff's motion was denied.
This site is intended for individuals with questions regarding wrongful death and other negligence issues in the State of New York. For more information, go to our web site www.foleygriffin.com, or call (800)991-2773. The information contained herein is a general guide for informational purposes only. This blog site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on any information contained from this site.
Showing posts with label liens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liens. Show all posts
October 13, 2006
May 11, 2006
MEDICAID LIENS

RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION ON MEDICAID LIENS
Recently the Supreme Court decided a case that will have an impact upon State's ability to recover payments under Medicaid. In discussing litigation settlements and recoveries, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that States may not demand reimbursement from portions of the settlement allocated or allocable to non-medical damages; instead, States are given only a priority disbursement from the medical expenses portion alone. Why is this important? Before this ruling, states like New York, would seek reimbursement for all Medicaid related expenditures. This often would seriously reduce a person's recovery. Now, the State's recovery will be limited pursuant to the ruling. www.foleygriffin.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)