data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3873/a38732e759110cdfead834f6659a086c39a48836" alt=""
The trial court found that
there was an enforceable agreement between the parties and the plaintiff
appealed. The court of appeals also found an enforceable agreement. The
plaintiff's (unexpressed) belief that the parties could not reach an agreement
because the Medicare lien was not discussed was not an objectively reasonable
belief. More to the point, because correspondence confirmed the terms of the
agreement, there was an objective expression that there was a meeting of the
minds and thus an agreement. Medicare's later assertion of a claim did not
extinguish this agreement; even the plaintiff's attorney acknowledged that all
parties were aware that Medicare had made some payments at the time of the
negotiations, though they had not known the amount of the claim. As the court
succinctly stated, "[w]e will not set aside a settlement in a personal injury
case merely because, in hindsight, it was obtained too soon and for too little"
(Id. at *5). While an 'enforceable agreement' can vary somewhat from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this is a useful case in that it underscores the
importance of identifying who - between settling parties - will be responsible
for any outstanding Medicare issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment