 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Houghton v. Dep't of Health9/27/2005
ed. 1999) (noting that "in common usage 'legal ruling' . . . is a term ordinarily used to signify the outcome of applying a legal test when that outcome is one of relatively narrow impact. The immediate effect is to decide an issue in a single case." (internal quotations omitted)). We acknowledged as much in McCoy, in the sentences immediately preceding the passage now cited by the State as the "holding," when we stated:
We see no justification for so limiting the relatively broad reach of subsection (4) in the case before us. In fact, it would be inherently unfair not to award attorney fees to McCoy, who has followed the requirements of the Act in securing a recovery on behalf of his client. We therefore conclude that under subsection (4), when the State elects to recover directly from a recipient who has expressly excluded the State's claim from any attempt to recover from a third party, the State must pay the attorney fees incurred in procuring the State's share of the settlement proceeds.
Id. (emphasis added). In short, our specific ruling in McCoy was based on the fact that the State sought to recover its lien directly from the recipient after McCoy had requested, and was denied, consent and after the recipient had excluded the State's claim from his efforts to obtain a recovery. Id. 3, 6.
In this case, we are asked to clarify the holding of McCoy as it relates to the scope of a discovery order concerning potential class members. Under such a circumstance, there is no need to restrict discovery to the class of cases that present fact patterns identical to the one presented in McCoy. In a context where few, if any, facts have been developed, it is necessary to reach beyond the narrow, fact-specific ruling of McCoy and apply its broader, more general holding. Doing otherwise would artificially and illogically restrict discovery and, concomitantly, the size of the potential class. Until the facts surrounding the claims of each potential class member have been developed, it will be impossible for the court to assess whether they fall within the general holding of McCoy.
In an effort to define the appropriate scope of the protective order, we return to the underpinnings of our decision in McCoy. In McCoy, we concluded that the State was obligated to pay a proportionate share of the plaintiff's attorney fees because the plaintiff complied with section 26-19-7 of the Medicaid lien statute. Id. 18. We based this conclusion on the fact that McCoy had requested consent to pursue the State's claim.
Our reliance on this factor was mandated by the terms of the lien statute, which prohibits a Medicaid recipient from seeking recovery of funds advanced by the State without the State's written consent. Utah Code Ann. ยง 26-19-7. Where Medicaid recipients failed to comply with the statute, they were not entitled to a contribution from the State for their attorney fees. The lien statute fails to address, however, the State's obligation to pay its fair share of attorney fees in those cases where consent was requested from, but denied by, the State and the State nevertheless elects to obtain its recovery from the proceeds obtained through the efforts of a Medicaid recipient's attorney. Accordingly, n McCoy, on grounds of fairness, we interpreted the statute to imply an obligation on the part of the State to pay fees where the attorney acted in compliance with the statute, requesting consent to pursue an action and then preserving the State's independent right to recover by excluding the State's claim from any action filed on behalf of the injured party.
Streight, 2004 UT 88, 13. This holding "struck a balance between the State's interest in prot
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|