New Mexico Injury Attorney Blog

When facing the uncertainties of a personal injury accident, it is important to know that your personal health information is protected by federal law. As a result, your medical care providers and insurers are required to safeguard your personal health information. Thus, anyone requesting your personal medical information must comply with both the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule found in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

The HIPAA was created to increase the efficiencies of the health care system, by creating national standards which protect "individually identifiable health information". This information includes your current and/or prior medical history, as well as anything that would specifically identify you, such as a social security number or birth date.

Within HIPAA is the Privacy Rule, which gives you rights over your personal health information in any form, whether verbal, written or electronic. Protected information includes the written information that is in your physical medical chart, as well as electronic data kept on your health care provider's computer system. Protected information also includes conversations you've had with these providers and your personal financial information used for billing purposes. It even includes information about you kept by health insurance companies, including Medicare and Medicaid.

The Privacy Rule provides a method for disclosing this protected information to others, but does set limitations. In the case of a personal injury claim, there may be insurance companies, governmental agencies, law firms, medical experts and others enlisted to defend against your claims. Your health care providers can only release your personal medical information to these entities after receiving your signed authorization, which specifies to whom the information will be sent along with the scope and date ranges for the medical records to be released.

Your personal medical information can be released by court order, but the information requested must be specifically identified, and only this information will be released. Subpoenas for your personal medical information are not the same as a court order unless issued by and upon the order of the Court. Subpoenas are typically issued directly by lawyers, who must comply with the Privacy Rule as well. They must either notify you of the request, so that you have an opportunity to object, or they must seek a "qualified protective order" through the court. A subpoena alone without the order of the court is not sufficient for the defense to obtain your medical records.

Though HIPAA laws will protect against unauthorized release of medical information to the defense, the discovery rules are fairly liberal. The defense will typically be able to obtain almost all medical records for seven to ten years prior to any accident or injury claimed in a personal injury lawsuit. Any records beyond that may be protected. And HIPAA will most definitely prevent the release of records without proper legal releases or court orders.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Tort Reform movement paints every personal injury claim as an assault on small business, doctors, health care, the public, the very American way of life. Every jury verdict is claimed as a victory of greedy trial lawyers and opportunistic plaintiffs who are just trying to profit at the expense of America. The tort reformers are not subtle in their claims. Unfortunately, their claims are completely false directed toward the protection of insurance industry profits.

This truth is born out in court every day, in every state, in every personal injury case. The mention of insurance coverage in personal injury actions is strictly prohibited. It is argued that jurors would unfairly factor the coverage into their decision-making. What escapes reason and discussion in the Tort Reform error is that jurors routinely and erroneously factor into their decisions the possibility that a large verdict would unduly harm the defendant whether it be a doctor, small business, large business, or individual.

In fact, this lie underlies the entire Tort Reform campaign which relies on the fact that the jury and the public are never told the truth behind each and every personal injury case. That truth is that personal injury cases are rarely filed at all unless there is insurance coverage. Insurance is called upon to reimburse plaintiffs for their injuries. In most cases, there is no point in filing against an uninsured defendant. Most uninsured individuals or businesses have no assets either. One of the first things anyone does upon the acquisition of wealth or assets is to obtain insurance to protect them. Where the defendant is uninsured, which is quite typical in auto accidents in New Mexico, the typical best case outcome is a large but uncollectable verdict. Few lawyers would put their clients or themselves through such a futile endeavor.

The truth is that the insurance industry, which records obscene earnings and profits each year, relies on the jury's lack of knowledge to protect not the doctor, the small business or the public but to protect its own profits. In the end, due to the huge success the lies of Tort Reform have in had on swaying juries against injured plaintiffs and effectively passing on the insurance industry's liability, it is both the public and the plaintiff who are harmed.

The Tort Reform movement in its successful campaigns for the protection of the insurance industry effectively shifts the costs of the insurance industry to the injured plaintiff and the public. After all, who pays when a plaintiff is horribly injured, forced to endure a lifetime of medical treatment and often unable to work? Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security then pick up the tab for what was contractually the responsibility of an insurance company. These costs are of course passed on to the public through taxes and debt.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear that personal injury suits harm the public. It is not the personal injury suit, the attorneys, or the plaintiff that hurt the public, it is the passing on of insurance coverage responsibilities from the ever successful and profitable insurance industry to the public health and welfare agencies that causes the true harm to the public.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Calculation of the Medicare set-aside in a personal injury action can be a long and tedious process. The law allows for a reasonable allocation for future medical expenses. Defining "reasonable" is anything but easy.

The set-aside calculation takes into consideration the patient's current condition, past medical treatment, future medical needs, life expectancy along with numerous other factors. Medicare may judge "reasonable" future medicals at a far higher amount than is suggested by the facts. An excessive set-aside coupled with the lien on past paid Medicare benefits may render a settlement or judgment worthless to the injured person as the fight for recovery is purely for the benefit of Medicare. This is particularly true in cases with catastrophic injuries and uninsured/underinsured or judgment proof defendants. There simply is not enough money to go around.

Worse still, the review and approval process can take months upon months to conclude. All the while, the statute of limitations is ticking along. The lengthy time necessary to conclude the review and approval can push a case that would otherwise settle into litigation. This of course places even greater costs on the injured person. Even then, Medicare holds the cards and they do not have to budge on their numbers. At some point, a rational plaintiff must decide whether litigation to pay Medicare and attorney fees is really worth the time and stress.

The bottom line is that the process with Medicare must begin early. Time is not really on your side in these cases. On the one hand there is Medicare and on the other the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations has a way of sneaking up on plaintiffs and many lawyers will not, and those that do should not, touch a case with these kinds of issues and short fuse on the statute of limitations.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The 10th Circuit recently addressed the reduction of state Medicaid liens against personal injury settlements in Price v. Wolford. The case involved a medical malpractice action brought on behalf of child that suffered severe brain injuries during delivery. The case settled for $1.1. million for the birth related injuries. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) asserted a Medicaid lien of $544,282.26 against the settlement. The district court reduced the Medicaid lien to $67,666.67 in proportion to value of the settlement in relation to the total value of the claim as well as for non-medical related damages.

Essentially the district court relied upon the plaintiff's valuation of the child's future medical costs at $12 million. The reduction also relied of Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn where the Supreme Court asserted that Medicaid may recover only against that portion of the settlement reflecting recovery of medical expenses. Compensation for other damages such as lost income, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and so on are beyond the reach of the lien. Due to the recovery of only a portion of the claimed medical expenses as well as the existence of significant non-medical damages, the district court substantially reduced the OCHA lien.

OHCA appealed on several grounds. The 10th Circuit denied their appeals on all but one issue which was whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of the value of the claim to justify the lien reduction over the objections of OHCA. The 10th Circuit found that insufficient evidence had been presented to justify the valuation. Thus the case was sent back to district court for the purpose of valuating the child's claim.

Notably, OHCA was present at the settlement conference where the claims were settled. It is not clear why the Medicaid lien was not addressed at that time. Due to the difficulties of dealing with Medicaid and Medicare, and the harsh consequences of failure to properly negotiate liens in advance of settlement, it is equally unclear why these issues were not addressed prior to the settlement conference.

In light of the fact that OHCA was present at the settlement conference, there may have been a dispute as to the value of the lien at that time. Perhaps, OHCA was taking an unreasonable position on its lien refusing the legally mandated reduction under Alhborn and federal statute. In any event, failure to reach an agreement on the lien at settlement laid the foundation for OHCA's later unreasonable intervention and demand for the full value of its lien.

This case points out the importance of negotiated lien reduction in advance of any settlement. Unfortunately, these liens may dictate the settlement options. In the event that Medicaid takes a unreasonable position as OHCA has done in this case, settlement may not be possible without the intervention of the court. This intervention should be sought in advance of settlement to avoid the unfortunate outcome here.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Personal injury cases often involve Medicare provided medical benefits. Medicare will claim liens against any personal injury settlement for both past and future medical expenses. Past medical benefits are hard enough to address due to the difficulty of working with Medicare on the settlement of its liens. Future medical is even more difficult due to the uncertainty of those Medicare benefits.

Prior to the settlement of any personal injury claim, it is critical that all Medicare liens be addressed. This includes liens to cover future benefits. Coverage of future Medicare benefits is addressed through Medicare Set-Asides. A Medicare Set-Aside essentially requires that a portion of the settlement or verdict be set aside to cover future medical benefits related to the injuries suffered in the accident. Medicare cannot claim liens against the settlement for unrelated medical benefits.

Failure to set aside funds for future Medicare benefits can be financially devastating. Medicare will take the position that no future Medicare benefits will be provided until the entire settlement amount has been exhausted. In addition, it becomes more difficult to dispute what is and is not related to the accident. Therefore it is important to address the set aside prior to settlement. Negotiation of the set aside up front can result in substantial reductions in the amount required to be set aside.

Basically, the negotiated set aside will fix an amount that must be expended by the injured person prior to Medicare picking up any additional medical expenses. Once that amount has been expended, then Medicare benefits will resume. Again, in the event that the set aside is not negotiated in advance of settlement, Medicare may take the position that the entire settlement amount must be expended prior to the resumption of Medicare benefits.

Due to the extreme position that Medicare may take in the event of failure to negotiate the set aside in advance of settlement, it is important to begin this process well before an anticipated settlement or trial. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done due to the difficulty of working with Medicare. It is a slow and tedious process but essential to protect the funds of a personal injury settlement or judgment.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

New Mexico has a high rate of uninsured. The state has the highest rate of uninsured motorists in the nation. The numbers related to those lacking health insurance are comparable. As a result, many personal injury cases in New Mexico involve Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Many who have suffered personal injuries from the negligence of another are very surprised to hear that Medicare/Medicaid will claim liens against any personal injury settlement funds. Medicare/Medicaid will assert a lien for the amount of medical bills related to the personal injuries. Both Medicare and Medicaid are very aggressive about collecting on those liens. The penalties are quite severe for failure to properly account for and pay these liens.

It should be kept in mind that Medicare/Medicaid may assert liens only for medical bills related to the personal injuries related to the settlement. This includes both past and future medical expenses. However, it includes only medical expenses and only those related to the personal injuries on that particular claim. Because the liens may only include medical expenses related to the personal injuries on that claim, Medicare and Medicaid liens are often overstated.

There are a number of areas where the lien might be overstated and subject to reduction. The area addressed here are attorney fees related to the personal injury claim. Medicare/Medicaid will reduce their liens by the amount of attorney fees. For instance, if attorney fees are 1/3 of the recovery, the liens will be reduced by 1/3 as well. However, like most issues surrounding Medicare and Medicaid, it is important to negotiate these reductions prior to settlement. Both Medicare and Medicaid laws dictate that they be notified prior to any settlement. They are both quite reasonable when approached prior to settlement. The process of lien reduction negotiations is significantly more difficult when initiated subsequent to settlement. This includes the reduction for attorney fees.

If Medicare and/or Medicaid are properly addressed from the beginning of the personal injury action, the reduction of the lien for attorneys fees is automatic. Failure to properly address the liens in advance of settlement can make even the legally mandated reduction of the liens for attorney fees very difficult. In addition, the settlement proceeds cannot be distributed until Medicare and/or Medicaid have been properly addressed. Distribution of the settlement proceeds prior to addressing the liens can be disastrous both for the injured client and the attorney. In the event the case has settled prior to working out the Medicare/Medicaid liens, this can be a long and difficult process. All the while, the clients funds must be held in trust and cannot be released.

Those who have suffered personal injuries must understand the importance of addressing Medicare/Medicaid liens. As stated, many are surprised and even angry that Medicare/Medicaid has asserted liens against their recovery. Many will go further forbidding their attorneys to pay the liens. Of course, this is simply not a possibility and any lawyer heeding those directions would get both the client and the lawyer in a serious financial bind. And in the end, Medicare/Medicaid will recover on their liens. The only question is whether or not the liens have been properly reduced or collected in full due to the failure to properly account for them in advance of settlement.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

It is fairly common that those that have been injured in accidents, particularly auto accidents and slip and fall accidents , are receiving Medicare benefits at the time of the accident, or as a result of the accident. What many do not realize is that Medicare has a lien against any personal injury recovery for damages awards or settlements received as a result of the injuries.

It is difficult at times to explain to injured persons the law or the logic behind the liens. In a nutshell, Medicare has the right to recover all Medicare benefits expended to treat the person's injuries. In addition, Medicare can insist on a set aside of personal injury funds for future treatment of those injuries. These liens can be very large in cases of serious personal injuries. On occasion, the size of these liens can render the personal injury recovery process, particularly in complex litigation, futile and a waste of the injured party's time and energy. After all, litigation is extremely stressful and costly. In these cases, the injured person must decide whether he or she wants to work that hard simply to repay Medicare.

The decision to move forward with the personal injury recovery process, and perhaps litigation, is made even more difficult by the fact that recovery itself, and the failure to properly address Medicare liens can result in significant liability, penalties and even forfeiture of future Medicare rights.

Here are the basic ground rules:

• Medicare must be reimbursed within 60 days of the settlement or judgment. This means that the issues must be addressed well in advance of final settlement or judgment to avoid inadvertent violation of the law.
• The defendant, generally the other party's insurance company, must report a possible recovery to Medicare. The defendant is liable to Medicare if the injured party fails to properly address Medicare liens. Consequently, many defendants will make Medicare one of the payees.
• The injured party's attorney is responsible for the full amount of the lien in the event that the injured party does not pay. This means that your attorney will not distribute any funds, yours or theirs, before addressing Medicare.
• The penalties for failure to properly account for Medicare liens are severe. The defendant can be fined $1000 day for failure to notify Medicare of the possible recovery. The injured party and both attorneys, may be all held individually liable for up to double the full amount of Medicare lien.

This all sounds pretty bad. And it gets worse. Medicare is completely non-responsive to attorneys on either side in their attempt to determine the amount of the liens. It can take months to get any response at all from Medicare. The process of negotiating the liens takes even longer. This makes these cases particularly stressful and time-consuming for injured persons. Often, the only thing holding up settlement is the Medicare lien. There are times when the Medicare lien will prevent a settlement. Worse yet, in many of these cases, costly litigation is simply not warranted. The end result is that in some cases the injured party gets nothing, Medicare gets nothing, and the defendant who caused the harm completely escapes accountability. That's Medicare protecting your tax dollars.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

There was a recent New Jersey jury verdict of $18.5 million for a birth injury. The medical malpractice award was reported in The Star Ledger. Essentially, the jury issued the verdict after finding that a delay in a c-section delivery resulted in the child's cerebral palsy.

It is not uncommon to see very large verdicts in birth injury cases. The damages in these cases are significant. The child and the family could face a lifetime of medical expenses, assisted living, rehabilitation and so on. This is not cheap. In addition, the child will one day become an adult with absolutely no possibility of earning income. A lifetime of lost earnings will typically make up a big part of the damages award. Then of course there are damages for pain and suffering. Despite what many believe, these are often a small percentage of the overall award.

Again, the verdict itself is not that surprising in light of the damages. In reading the comments on the article, I was struck by the success of the tort reform movement in programming the public's response. In fact, most jurors come to the jury box with these same prejudices including a strong bias toward protecting the medical profession.

One comment suggested that "Life is never fair. Nothing guarantees a perfect life or entrance into it." Another suggested that these awards are the reason for high health insurance costs. Another suggested that patients buy their own insurance to protect against medical malpractice. Even the one that agreed with the verdict expressed horror that the attorney would be paid a percentage of the recovery.

Yes, life is not fair. But life should not be made dangerous by the acts of others, especially those entrusted with your care. And those that do cause harm should bear responsibility for their actions. Lawsuits are not the reason insurance is so high, insurance companies are the reason insurance is so high. The medical malpractice crisis is a myth. Medical malpractice claims have dropped dramatically over the last 10 years. A study by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that up to 98,000 people die each year as a result of medical negligence. The fact is far fewer lawsuits are brought than realistically should be to protect the public against these risks.

Numerous health insurance companies made record or near record profits in 2009. At the same time, many are raising premiums across the board. Think about that. They made record profits during the worst recession since the Great Depression and yet they are still raising rates. Is it really lawsuits that are driving insurance costs? Could it not be corporate greed?

And what about those greedy lawyers? Look again at the actual numbers on medical malpractice claims. There are very few medical malpractice lawsuits being filed just in relation to wrongful deaths associated with medical negligence. This does not even begin to address medical negligence that results in non-fatal injuries and illness, often permanent, caused by medical negligence. The fact is these are extremely hard cases for attorneys. They are extremely expensive to litigate. This is true even in clear cases of negligence where it is often the policy of insurance companies to deny every claim. In addition, these cases are lost at trial more often than they are won due to the benefit of the doubt given doctors. Attorneys that take these cases take on enormous risks. Without the fee in the end, nobody would take these cases. And injured patients and society would be forced to bear the costs of these errors.

To some, as indicated by the comments to the report of the verdict, it is far better for society to allow insurance companies to charge outrageous premiums to protect against a fictitious wave of medical malpractice lawsuits while having the patient bear all the risks. It is far better still that society and taxpayers should bear the costs of a lifetime of care for injured patients through Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security than for insurance companies to cover the losses for which they are paid to cover. The insurance companies after all are the true victims here. We should protect their margins.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals case, Chairez v. James Hamilton Construction Co., discussed in my prior post also addressed issues related to exclusive remedy of worker's compensation for employees injured on the job. Most states have statutes similar to New Mexico limiting an injured worker's claims against a negligent employer to worker's compensation. As was the case in Chairez, there are exceptions for injuries caused as the result of the negligence of a third party.

In Chairez, the deceased plaintiff's estate (plaintiff) sued the manufacturer for a defective rock crusher under product liability law. The defendant's motion for summary judgment due to modification of the equipment by the plaintiff's employer was denied. It was clear that the employer's modification of the rock crusher by removing a critical safety feature was negligent and contributed to the death of the plaintiff.

Due to New Mexico's exclusive worker's compensation remedy against the employer, plaintiff was unable to bring a claim against the employer despite the employer's obvious negligence, and arguable recklessness. The court cited the seminal 2001 New Mexico Supreme Court case on the issue of Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino in support of its discussion.

The Court laid out the requirements set forth in Delgado for the waiver of worker's compensation protection by an employer. Delgado holds that an employee can bring an action against the employer for work related injuries in very rare situations. The court in Chairez stated the Delgado factors as; "(1) he or she can establish that the employer engaged in an intentional act or omission without just cause that is reasonably expected to result in the injury to the worker; (2) the employer expected the intentional act or omission to result in the injury; and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately caused the injury."

Thus, the hurdle for getting past worker's compensation exclusivity is very high. In Chairez, the plaintiff was unable to clear this hurdle despite the obvious negligence of the employer in removing the safety features from the rock crusher.

Unfortunately, New Mexico like most states, provides far greater protection for the employer than the injured employee. The statute is drafted as if it is meant to protect employees. In reality, it is there to protect employers. The result is that countless workers each year in New Mexico and in other states are gravely injured or killed by the negligence and/or recklessness of their employers. The root of the behavior is often economic as in Chairez where the safety mechanism was removed so that the rock crusher could be cleaned faster to minimize down time.

Worse still, workers or their surviving families receive only nominal awards from for their damages. They receive pennies on the dollar for their lost wages which may be permanent and total. They receive only trivial awards for the rather cynically and miserly computation of their impairment ratings for permanent injuries. They do receive medical costs, past and future, associated with the injury. If the insurance companies can find a way around this, they do. The injured employee receives no other compensation for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of household services or any other losses.

In the end, society pays through Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other governmental programs. Thus, taxpayers are left to cover losses that should rightfully be paid by the businesses that caused them.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Medicaid liens can cause significant financial complications following settlement of a personal injury lawsuit. There are significant penalties for failure to properly account for those liens out of settlement funds. It is important that the Medicaid liens be addressed and satisfied with both New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prior to distribution of personal injury settlement funds. It is equally important to the injured person that Medicaid not be overcompensated for their liens.

Medicaid through HSD and CMS is quite serious about collecting on its liens. In fact, Medicaid will on occasion assert liens beyond what it is legally mandated. This overstatement of its lien is typically the result of some confusion in the law regarding Medicaid reimbursement. This confusion over the Medicaid's rights to reimbursement can be quite costly if not addressed properly.

In most cases, Medicaid is very reasonable in addressing liens so long as the liens are addressed in a timely manner prior to settlement of personal injury claims. However, as a result of misinterpretations of the law, HSD in particular has been known to demand full recovery of all medical expenses advanced by Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid is not necessarily entitled to the full reimbursement of all Medicaid advanced medical expenses. This is particularly true in cases involving serious personal injuries.

Medicaid is entitled only to the recovery of liens associated with medical expenses. In a personal injury lawsuit, particularly in cases with serious injuries, the settlement or award typically includes a wide range of damages including lost wages, loss of consortium, loss of household services, permanent injury and disfigurement, pain and suffering and punitive damages. These are entirely distinct from the damages awarded for medical expenses.

Medicaid is not allowed to recover for any non-medical related damages. The reason for this is simple. As set forth in the 2006 United States Supreme Court case of Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlhorn, Medicaid may not "share in damages for which it has provided no compensation..." Medicaid provides no relief or support for damages other than medical expenses and therefore will not reap the benefit of any award for these other non-medical related damages.

It is not uncommon that the settlement or award does not specifically break down the allocation between medical damages and other non-medical damages. In case of a dispute over the breakdown, the parties can call on the court for a determination of the allocation between medical and non-medical damages. The Court will then apportion the damages between medical and non-medical damages based upon the injuries in the case. Medicaid will then reimbursed based upon the Court's apportionment of damages.

Medicaid issues are very complicated and it is important to seek the advice of an attorney prior to accepting any settlement. All liens, including Medicaid liens, should be negotiated prior to final settlement. Failure to negotiate liens in advance may have severe financial consequences for the injured person. This is particularly so in case of Medicaid liens for which failure to pay may result in significant fines and penalties.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

In personal injury cases in New Mexico, the injured person has often received medical care through Medicare or Medicaid (hereinafter referred to collectively as Medicare). Medicare by law has a lien against any settlement for the full amount of the Medicare benefits. This lien is prior to all other obligations or other distributions verdict or settlement funds. Failure to properly address these liens can have serious financial consequences.

Medicare liens are enforced through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Often times, CMS will contact you or your attorney to put you both on notice of the liens. However, even if neither you nor attorney has received notice, you are both responsible for those liens. Therefore, if you have received any Medicare related medical treatment for your injuries, you should alert your attorney at the very first meeting.

Proper handling of these liens requires early attention to the liens. Medicare must be notified immediately of any possible claims or lawsuits associated with the Medicare related treatment. It is not the responsibility of Medicare to notify the parties. Medicare must also be kept informed of any settlement negotiations. Medicare technically has the authority to block a settlement if the settlement does not reasonably address its liens. Finally once the claims are resolved either through settlement or litigation, the lien must be resolved. In fact, Medicare is has first priority over any distribution of any funds.

There are significant potential penalties for failure properly account for Medicare liens. The rules are very strict. The Medicare lien must be paid within 60 days of the final notice of lien. Failure to do so can result in severe penalties including double damages and interest on delinquent liens. Thus, it is important to keep Medicare involved in the settlement or litigation process. This means negotiating the liens with Medicare prior to final settlement or immediately following a verdict.

The good news is that Medicare is very reasonable in the negotiation and resolution of its liens. Often, the final resolution will reflect inadequate insurance policy limits to cover the client's injuries and damages. In addition, Medicare often has overstated liens reflecting Medicare benefits unrelated to the personal injury claim. Medicare will routinely reduce its liens for an overstatement of benefits once it is brought to their attention. Once you have negotiated the lien, you will be able to move forward with the distribution of verdict or settlement funds with peace of mind.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com