Homan v. County of Cattaraugus Department of Social Services
New York Supreme Court
901 N.Y.S.2d 899 (2009)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Lester Homan (plaintiff) was driving when he was hit head-on by Cory Durrance. Homan was seriously injured, and Durrance did not have car insurance. Consequently, Homan’s insurer received notice of Homan’s claim. Later, the Cattaraugus County Department of Social Services (DSS) (defendant) gave notice to all parties that it was claiming a lien for Homan’s medical expenses on any potential recovery. Homan’s insurer settled the case for the $25,000 policy limit. The release stated that the settlement was only for bodily injury and conscious pain and suffering. Homan moved for an order declaring DSS’s lien null and void. Homan cited a United States Supreme Court case in which the plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident, and the Arkansas Department of Health and Services (ADHS) provided substantial medical care for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sued the defendants, and ADHS asserted a lien on any recovery the plaintiff might obtain. The case was settled, and the settlement was not allocated among damage categories. ADHS claimed that its entire lien was recoverable regardless of whether the settlement was allocated for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, or anything else. The parties had stipulated to the full value of the case and the pro rata value of the claimed lien. The United States Supreme Court decided that the federal anti-lien provisions under Medicaid law limit the states to recovery from the portion of a settlement allocated to past medical expenses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Himelein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
