Angiulo: Personal Injury Claims, Liens, and the Supreme Court
Monday, January 25, 2016
In Massachusetts, liens are a product of statute and subject to various requirements. Those requirements include, but are not limited to, proper service of notice, time restraints on enforcement, and proper itemization upon demand.
While it is true that some liens can be negotiated down, paid and then released, the lien holders are usually holding all the cards. This is especially true because money will not typically be delivered to a client by an attorney until the liens are resolved. As mentioned above, the money associated with personal injury cases can go to help pay for all those things that come with a traumatic personal injury like modification of bathrooms or helping with grocery and utility bills.
A recent United States Supreme Court case dealing with a different kind of lien considers how complicated, and expensive, a fight with lien holders can become. In Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, the plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident resulting in more than $120,000 in medical bills. As a result of those injuries, the plaintiff received a $500,000 settlement. Those monies were carved up between the plaintiff, the attorney, and the Board of Trustees as a lien holder.
According to the decision, after settlement a dispute arose between the plaintiff's attorney and the Board of Trustees who had a lien for medical bills that they had paid for the plaintiff. While there appears to have been some attempt to negotiate a settlement of that lien, it never came together. Instead of sending any money to the lien holder, the plaintiff's attorney gave the money to their client after the Board failed to object before a deadline set by plaintiff's counsel.
The case started in Federal District Court after the Board sued to collect the lien amount. The problem was that the plaintiff had already spent most of the settlement funds. At trial, the argument was focused on whether, or not, the Board could go after the plaintiff's general assets even if the settlement assets were gone. The plaintiff lost at both the trial level and at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but didn't get discouraged. Some might say they found victory at the Supreme Court who rejected the board's claim to general assets like all contents of bank accounts.
Victory is, however, a relative concept in the law because the Supreme Court did not say the plaintiff could keep the money. What they said was: the board was only entitled to collect on assets from the settlment. The case was returned to the trial court so evidence could be produced about whether, or not, the settlement funds were kept seperate from the plaintiff's general assets or had all been spent on nontraceable assets. The Supreme Court essentially said if the settlement assets could be identified they were subject to the lien holder's claim.
As a result of this decision, the plaintiff now faces more court hearings, more litigation, and more costs in the form of various legal and documentation fees, not to mention the personal time that goes into fighting a case. From a practical perspective, some readers may wonder if the financial gain from avoiding the lien may be outweighed by the costs of fighting the lien holder.
- Angiulo: Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Stops and the Odor of Marijuana Continued
- Angiulo: Promises Made in Auto Insurance Applications May Stick
- Angiulo: Cell Phone Tracking in Massachusetts
- Angiulo: When Working From Home Causes a Lawsuit
- Angiulo: Railroad in Grafton Subject to Federal Law
- Angiulo: Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Says Growing Weed Still a Crime
- Angiulo: Employee Injuries and Employer Liability
- Angiulo: Freedom of Speech and Political Campaigns
- Angiulo: Challenging the Legality of Motor Vehicle Stops by Police
- Angiulo: Overtime Pay for Employees and Employer Obligations
- Angiulo: Sometimes a Spouse Really Does Get Half Your Stuff in a Divorce
- Cheat Sheet 11, The Patriarca Papers Unveil Sam Giancana, Meyer Lansky and Jerry Angiulo
- Angiulo: Custody of Refugees Without Parents
- Angiulo: Arbitration Requirements, Consumer Protection & the Supreme Court
- Angiulo: American Civilians Injured Abroad Have Limited Options
- Angiulo: Taking Immigrants Into Custody
- Angiulo: What Happens When a Witness has a Sealed Record?
- Angiulo: Defining the Law for Misdemeanor Arrests
- Angiulo: Drug Dependent Defendants Have Options
- Angiulo: Defamation, Opinions, and Rock n Roll
- Angiulo: Further Refining Parental Discipline Standards in MA
- Angiulo: Involuntary Commitment for Drug & Alcohol Abuse in MA
- Angiulo: Law Enforcement, Qualified Immunity and Use of Force
- Angiulo: House Judiciary Committe Reports Out Sentencing Reform Act of 2015
- Angiulo: When a Member of the Public is Injured on Your Property