Groundhog Day: Municipal Resistance to 'Ahlborn'
Despite the clear dictates of 'Ahlborn' and 'Wos', practitioners in personal injury cases continue to face a difficult practical choice when dealing with social service agencies which intransigently refuse to follow federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court's binding precedents.
January 25, 2021 at 12:15 PM
14 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court seldom issues rulings that broadly affect state law in personal injury cases. But, one area in which it has done so in recent years has been the enforceability and collectability of Medicaid liens against personal injury recoveries. In two significant decision, Department of Social Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), and Wos v. E.M.A., 568 U.S. 627 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court established that, if a personal injury plaintiff recovers only a small fraction of the value of his or her injuries in a lawsuit—due, for instance, to limited insurance coverage or difficulties proving liability—a Medicaid lien must be reduced by the same proportion as every other element of damages in the case. If a plaintiff recovers only 50% of the true value of his damages, a Medicaid lien should similarly be reduced to 50% of its asserted amount. This takes account of the logical principle that, if a case must be settled for a fraction of its value, every element of damages making up the recovery should be proportionately reduced in the same way.
Many municipalities in the state of New York have accepted the clear import of Ahlborn and Wos, and have followed them when negotiating the reduction of liens at the end of personal injury cases. Some, however, have not, requiring personal injury plaintiffs either to resolve their liens on less favorable terms than federal law dictates, or otherwise to go to court to relitigate the merits of Ahlborn and Wos anew—and to do so yet again, each time the issue arises. In this way, these municipalities' position recalls the iconic Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day," in which he must repeatedly relive the same day over and over, as though he had not done so previously. In Valentin v. NYPH, Bronx County Index No. 22092/2006E, in a 2020 decision, Justice George Silver rejected a social service agency's attempt to avoid the clear mandates of Ahlborn and Wos, and cogently explained the requirements of federal law. His decision is one of several that judges have been required to hand down to reiterate the principles the Supreme Court has already established.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
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