[blindlaw] Any employment law lawyers out there?

Sun Aug 26 23:04:49 UTC 2012

IHi Will,  you hit the nail on the head with my gut feeling on the 
insistance in the matter. It just seems to be right out of left field with 
no real bearing on reality, and is a reason why I posed the question in the 
first place.
 Its a whitleblower case for Pete's sake.
In my view, it is, in its own way a punitive measure offerred to tie the 
plaintiff down so much that he or she will find it difficult to  live their 
life after the ink dries.
Your view and mine are the same.
Thanks for the validation of my hunch.
Ross

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William T. Miller" <william_t_miller at hotmail.com>
To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Any employment law lawyers out there?

> Hey Ross, I could be totally off base but smell defense attorney
> shananigans.  Is the employer insisting on this language?  I can't imagine
> how it could be relevant in a whistleblower case and wonder if the defense
> might be fishing for information to reduce the value of the claim.  The
> provision requires the claimant to warrant that he or she has not filed 
> for
> SSDI.  This could lead to useful information for the defense:if the 
> claimant
> has filed for SSDI (a claim that they are unable to work due to a
> disability), then the defense has a strong argument that the claimant is 
> not
> entitled to lost wages.  Regardless of the facts in the particular case, I
> would argue that the language is not relevant where there is no claim of
> personal injury and ask the defense to provide authority to the contrary 
> if
> they insist that it is required.
>
> - Will
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:51 PM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Any employment law lawyers out there?
>
> Hi Will:
> Good points, but this language comes from a settlement in an employment 
> law
> whistleblower case, and I am now told that this is "required". I found 
> that
> to be a bit confusing in this context, but do understand it in a worker's
> comp matter or one involving Medicare or Medicaid.
> That was my reason for the post.
> I'll look over the web site, thanks, I appreciate the response.
> Ross
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "William T. Miller" <william_t_miller at hotmail.com>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Any employment law lawyers out there?
>
>
>> Hi Ross,
>> I'm not an employment law attorney, but I have had some experience with
>> Medicare and Medicaid liens in the context of personal injury cases. The
>> language you posted is probably for Workers' Comp cases.  I do not know
>> how
>> it would be relevant in the employment context unless its Workers' 
>> Comp...
>> or maybe an injury that occurred in the employment context and is exempt
>> from Workers' Comp by state law? The Medicare Secondary Payer Act
>> generally
>> requires that Medicare's interests be considered in settlements that
>> involve
>> payment for future medical expenses where the claimant currently receives
>> Medicare or is likely to begin receiving it in the near future. Here is a
>> useful website on the topic (The Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery
>> Contractor website):
>>
>> http://www.msprc.info/
>>
>> Medicare (and Medicaid, if applicable) must also be considered and
>> notified
>> in cases where they have paid a claimant's medical expenses resulting 
>> from
>> an injury, and the claimant is subsequently reimbursed for medical
>> expenses
>> as part of a liability settlement.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>> Will Miller
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> William T. Miller, P.A.
>>
>> P.O. Box 7
>>
>> Kernersville, NC 27285
>>
>> (336) 497-5160 (phone)
>>
>> (336) 497-5161 (fax)
>>
>> william_t_miller at hotmail.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:03 PM
>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>> Subject: [blindlaw] Any employment law lawyers out there?
>>
>> To any employment law attorneys out there - it is my understanding that
>> there must now be Medicare language in employment law settlements. It is
>> supposed to be required language now.
>>
>> As I understand it, no set-aside is required for
>>
>> settlements under $25,000.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me what statute or regulation requires this component? 
>> I'm
>> looking for authority here.
>>
>> This is some draft language I've picked up -
>>
>> *Medicare Reporting Requirements.  The parties have considered Medicare's
>> interest in this matter, if any, and Employee declares and expressly
>> warrants that he is not Medicare eligible nor
>>
>> within thirty (30) months of becoming Medicare eligible; is not 65 years
>>
>> of age or older; is not suffering from end stage renal failure; has not
>>
>> received Social Security benefits for 24 months or longer; and has not
>>
>> applied for Social Security disability benefits, and/or has not been
>>
>> denied Social Security disability benefits and appealing the denial; and
>>
>> therefore, no Medicare Set Aside Allocation is being established.
>>
>> Employee attests that the claims released herein are not related to any
>>
>> illness or injury for which Employee would apply or receive Medicare
>>
>> benefits. Employee understands that he is required by law to disclose
>>
>> this information to Employer and its attorneys in connection with this
>>
>> Agreement.  Employee understands that failure to do so may result in
>>
>> penalties being assessed against Employee, the parties, and attorneys.
>>
>> Employee declares and warrants that he is aware of the requirements of
>>
>> the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSP"). Employee understands that
>>
>> Medicare has an interest in recovering any benefits paid when it is used
>>
>> as a source of secondary payment.  Employee therefore agrees to release,
>>
>> hold harmless, and indemnify Employer and the Employer Releasees from
>>
>> any remedies, reprisals, or penalties that result from Employee's
>>
>> failure to disclose or release his status as a Medicare beneficiary.  In
>>
>> the event that any of the above information provided by Employee is
>>
>> false or in any way incorrect, Employee shall be solely liable for any
>>
>> and all actions, causes of actions, penalties, claims, costs,  services,
>>
>> compensation  or the  like  resulting from these  inaccuracies.
>>
>> Employee acknowledges that Medicare may require him to exhaust all of
>>
>> the payments in Section 4.A. on Medicare covered expenses should he
>>
>> become Medicare eligible within thirty (30) months.  Employee waives any
>>
>> claims for damages, including a private cause of action provided in the
>>
>> MSP, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), should Medicare deny coverage for
>>
>> any reason, including the failure to establish a set aside allocation to
>>
>> protect Medicare's interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindlaw:
>>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c
> om
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5223 - Release Date: 08/25/12
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.com
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12
> 