January 2018 Subrogation Newsletter
KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY THAT UNLOCKS ALL DOORS: Follow Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer Deeper into the Matrix of Subrogation Via Social Media
Already known for hosting the country’s premier website for subrogation resources, MWL unveiled its new YouTube Channel, featuring recorded subrogation training videos and our attorneys will soon be uploading short weekly videos answering questions and addressing hot topics related to subrogation. Please visit us on YouTube and don’t forget to subscribe! We also welcome you to follow all our social media pages as they will assist you in keeping informed on developments and changes in the law that effect the industry, which is key to obtaining the best results and could mean the difference between successful recoveries and no recoveries at all.
Proving reasonable value of medical services has become controversial and confusing. Every state has gone its own way in dealing with the issue. An understanding of how medical expenses are proven and recovered in civil litigation is a necessity for legislators, lawyers, claims professionals, and judges alike. This article provides an overview of the law regarding the pleading, proof, and recovery of past medical expenses that have been fully or partially paid by collateral sources, such as private insurance. Our newest 50-state chart entitled “Medical Billing, Insurance Write-Offs, and the Collateral Source Rule” is also introduced in this article.
The Amtrak Cascades 501 departed Seattle on its inaugural voyage on December 18, 2017 and, just after 7:30 a.m., it derailed at high speed causing three fatalities, dozens of injuries, and widespread destruction. Ideally, the parties liable for rail disasters are made to bear the cost of damages through subrogation. That may occur, depending on the facts and circumstances, but in serious cases, a lesser-known federal statute can leave insurers and insureds woefully under-compensated. Insurers, plans, and employers may be wise to start their subrogation efforts and get on board early so that they can assert and protect their rights throughout the complex litigation process.
After considering a motion brought by the plaintiffs in 46 actions pending in nine federal districts across the country, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) entered an order transferring those actions to the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Those cases represent only a fraction of the cases recently filed against numerous manufacturers of prescription opioid medications. Centralization will likely swell what has already been a deluge of claims against the drug makers. The vast majority of cases filed to date have been brought by governmental plaintiffs—states, counties, and municipalities—but the filing of claims by third-party payors has begun to pick up speed as well.