RI court hears $60M dispute with Catholic order
National News
The niece of a woman who gave more than $60 million to a now-disgraced Catholic order is asking the Rhode Island Supreme Court to let her sue so the money can go somewhere more deserving.
The court is due to hear arguments Tuesday over lawsuits brought by Mary Lou Dauray against the Legion of Christ, whose founder secretly molested seminarians and fathered three children. Dauray's aunt, Gabrielle Mee, died in 2008 and left everything she owned to the Legion.
A Superior Court judge ruled in 2012 that Douray did not have standing to sue and threw out her lawsuits against the Legion of Christ and Bank of America, which Douray claimed breached its fiduciary duty as the trustee of Mee's estate.
When Judge Michael Silverstein issued that decision, however, he wrote there was evidence that the Legion had exerted undue influence on the widow.
The Legion was founded in 1941 by the late Rev. Marcial Maciel. Documents show Vatican officials knew about his abuse for decades but looked the other way as the conservative order brought in money and vocations. The Vatican took over the Legion in 2010 and launched a reform process which culminated this year with the election of a new government and approval of constitutions.
But priests and followers continue to leave the movement. The Legion announced in October that the college it owned in Smithfield, where Mee once lived as a consecrated member of its lay movement, would close next year.
Related listings
-
Egyptian court sentences 188 people to death
National News 12/04/2014An Egyptian court sentenced 188 people to death Tuesday pending the opinion of the country's top religious authority, the latest mass death sentence handed down by the country's judicial system despite widespread international criticism. The 188 were...
-
Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
National News 12/01/2014The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs. The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling t...
-
Philippine court convicts 9 Chinese of poaching
National News 11/25/2014A Philippine court convicted nine Chinese fishermen Monday of poaching and taking hundreds of endangered giant sea turtles from a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, fining each of them nearly $103,000 but imposing no jail term. The fishermen were...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.