Maryland Electrical Industry Health Fund v. Levitt

4 Citing cases

  1. MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. v. DO

    CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-03-1500 (D. Md. Oct. 7, 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that, where beneficiary was injured in car accident and obtained a settlement “in a manner that does not specify the nature of compensation, it may be presumed that said recovery is intended to cover medical expenses”

    Lebowitz and the Firm are not party to, nor are they bound by, the Plan. Judge Smalkin of this Court addressed the question of whether "an attorney retained by an ERISA plan beneficiary who receives settlement funds (or other funds in recovery) from a third party tortfeasor [has] any duty enforceable under ERISA to account to the ERISA Plan for the proceeds received, to the extent of the Plan's known claim?"Maryland Elect. Industry Health Fund v. Levitt, 155 F. Supp.2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2001). Judge Smalkin held That "[t]he answer, as authoritatively established by cases outside the Fourth Circuit, but which the Fourth Circuit would undoubtedly find persuasive, is wno.Southern Council of Industrial Workers v. Ford, 83 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 1996); Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, 50 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 1995); Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508 (11th Cir. 1993),cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1165, 114 S.Ct. 1191, 127 L.Ed.2d 541 (1994); Associates in Adolescent Psychiatry v. Home Life Ins. Co., 941 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1991)."

  2. T.A. Loving Company v. Denton

    723 F. Supp. 2d 837 (E.D.N.C. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    In Denton, the court found that Bullock ’s "rule" had not been abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Sereboff v. Mid-Atlantic Med. Servs., 547 U.S. 356, 126 S.Ct. 1869, 164 L.Ed.2d 612 (2006).SeeDenton, 723 F. Supp. 2d at 840–41.

    The T.A. Loving Company also seeks to recover the contingency fee from Brent Adams and Brent Adams Associates. Great West Life Annuity Ins. Co. v. Bullock, 202 F.Supp.2d 461, 464-65 (E.D.N.C. 2002) sets forth the rule that an attorney may be liable under § 502(a)(3) only where the attorney is a party to the plan, the attorney agrees to abide by plan provisions, or the attorney's wrongdoing or intentional effort enables the beneficiary to avoid plan provisions. See also Maryland Electrical Industry Health Fund v. Levitt, 155 F.Supp.2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2001) ("Does an attorney retained by an ERISA plan beneficiary who receives settlement funds (or other funds in recovery) from a third party tortfeasor have any duty enforceable under ERISA to account to the ERISA Plan for the proceeds received, to the extent of the Plan's known claim? The answer . . . is no."); Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. v. Do, 294 F.Supp.2d 695, 703 (D. Md. 2003).

  3. Mank v. Green

    368 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Me. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    For support, Defendants rely on cases in which courts have concluded that a plan beneficiary's attorney who receives settlement funds (or other funds in recovery) from a third-party does not have any duty enforceable under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA to honor the ERISA plan's subrogation or reimbursement rights with respect to the settlement proceeds if the attorney has no professional or contractual relationship with the plan. See, e.g., Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, 50 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 1995); Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508, 1510-11 (11th Cir. 1993); Mid Atl. Med. Servs., Inc. v. Do, 294 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D. Md. 2003); Great-West Life Annuity Ins. Co. v. Bullock, 202 F. Supp. 2d 461, 465 (E.D.N.C. 2002); Maryland Elec. Indus. Health Fund v. Levitt, 155 F. Supp. 2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2001). Plaintiff responds arguing that no separate relations hip between the Plan and the Attorneys need be established on the facts of this case because the Attorneys possessed and controlled the $300,000 settlement monies and the Plan's equitable right to the settlement funds arose when the Plan paid benefits on behalf of Mrs. Green for her injuries.

  4. Mank v. Green

    323 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D. Me. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    Defendants, on the other hand, draw the Court's attention to cases in which courts have concluded that a plan beneficiary's attorney who receives settlement funds (or other funds in recovery) from a third party does not have any duty enforceable under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA to honor the ERISA plan's subrogation or reimbursement rights with respect to the settlement proceeds if the attorney has no professional or contractual relationship with the plan. See, e.g., Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees International Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, 50 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 1995); Maryland Electrical Industry Health Fund v. Levitt, 155 F. Supp.2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2001). Discovery in this case was previously limited to the existence and location of any identifiable proceeds from the Green settlement in Defendants' possession.