![Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse on 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO. Credit: Google](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2024/09/Eighth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-767x633.jpg)
Eighth Circuit Upholds Enforcement of No-Bill Agreements
The Eighth Circuit held unanimously that these "no-bill agreements" were legal in an opinion that turned on the statutory interpretation of Minnesota's No-Fault Act.
September 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently authored an opinion addressing an offshoot of a lengthy government investigation that the government termed "Operation Backcracker." To effectuate the scheme at issue, chiropractors used recruiters to find automobile-accident victims who would receive treatment under Minnesota's No-Fault Act. In Taqueria El Primo v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, Case No. 23-3128, the Eighth Circuit vacated a district court opinion that had enjoined Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. and others (collectively Farmers) from entering into and enforcing civil settlements in which providers had agreed not to bill Farmers for treatment. The Eighth Circuit held unanimously that these "no-bill agreements" were legal in an opinion that turned on the statutory interpretation of Minnesota's No-Fault Act.
Background
The court pointed to a prior case, United States v. Luna, 968 F.3d 922, 924–26 (8th Cir. 2020), for a description of the scheme. Minnesota has a unique no-fault automobile-insurance system. It requires auto insurers to cover a minimum of $20,000 per person for "reasonable" and "necessary" medical expenses, regardless of who caused an accident. As a practical matter, although insurers can inquire into whether such care was reasonable and necessary, their standard practice is to pay the bills that are submitted.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2022/05/Allison-Jones-Rushing-2021-006-767x633.jpg)
Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
5 minute read![State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/11/Fee-Dispute-767x633.jpg)
State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation
5 minute read![Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/414/2024/03/Gavel-and-Justice-Scales.jpeg-image767x633cropped.jpg)
Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules
5 minute read![TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2022/04/TikTok-App-13-767x633-1.jpg)
TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250