 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. Innovative Recovery Services7/28/2000
The attorney for a woman who had been injured in an auto accident claimed that his services entitled him to a portion of the subrogation interest asserted by TennCare against the settlement proceeds. The trial court dismissed his claim. We affirm the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded
Ben H. Cantrell, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which William C. Koch, Jr. and Patricia J. Cottrell, JJ., joined.
OPINION
I.
Faye Green was injured in an auto accident. Her medical expenses, in the amount of $23,059, were paid by Access MedPLUS, a TennCare contractor. Ms. Green hired Robert L. Whitaker, an attorney with Bart Durham and Associates, to represent her in a suit against the other driver, Edward T. Shear, Jr. Mr. Whitaker filed suit on Ms. Green's behalf, asking for damages of $340,000, but eventually settling for policy limits of $50,000.
During the litigation, defendant Innovative Recovery Services, Inc (IRSI) informed Mr. Whitaker that it handled all subrogation matters for Access MedPLUS, that it expected to be reimbursed for medical expenses out of any payments made to Ms. Green, and that it did not wish to enlist his help to protect the subrogation interest of Access MedPLUS.
After the settlement was paid, Ms. Faye's attorney put the subrogation amount into a trust account, and filed suit for a declaratory judgment against IRSI, asking for an order that would reduce the subrogation claim by one-third, for reasonable and necessary attorney fees. The trial court found that there was no contract between IRSI and Mr. Whitaker and granted summary judgment to IRSI. This appeal followed.
II.
Mr. Whitaker's sole argument on appeal is that Access MedPLUS was not entitled to subrogation because Ms. Green was not "made whole" by the settlement with the tortfeasor's insuror. For its part, IRSI notes that the appellant never submitted its made-whole argument for the trial court's consideration, and that the trial court was therefore never afforded the opportunity to determine whether or not Ms. Green had been made whole by the settlement, nor to consider whether the made-whole doctrine was applicable to the facts of the case.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is appellate only. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 16-4-108. This Court is not required to consider arguments on appeal that were not presented to the court below. See Williamson County Broadcasting Co. v. Intermedia Partners, 987 S.W.2d 550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Sweeney v. State Dept. of Transportation, 744 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). It follows, therefore, that we need not address the question of whether the made-whole doctrine precludes the appellee from collecting any portion of its subrogation claim.
The basis of the trial court's decision was the lack of a contractual relationship between the appellee and Mr. Whitaker. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 71-5-117 establishes the State's right of subrogation where a TennCare recipient has received reimbursement for the costs of treatment paid by the TennCare program. Section (a) of that statute reads in part:
To the extent of payments of medical assistance, the state shall be subrogated to all rights of recovery, for the cost of care or treatment for the injury or illness for which medical assistance is provided, contractual or otherwise, of the recipients against any person.
Section (c) of the statute reads:
The right of subrogation by the state to the recipients' right to recovery shall be subject to ordinary and reasonable attorney fees; provided, th
Page 1 2 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|