Former Attorney General Mike Cox will join Dykema Gossett
Notable Attorneys
Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox will join Detroit-based Dykema Gossett PLLC as a senior attorney in its litigation department, the law firm CEO confirmed today.
Cox, 49, who ended eight years as the state's chief law enforcement officer on Jan. 1, starts next Monday at Dykema's Detroit office. He will practice in health care fraud, white-collar criminal law and federal and state regulatory compliance, said Dykema Chairman and CEO Rex Schlaybaugh.
Schlaybaugh said the firm leadership had talked with Cox for more than a month about his options upon leaving office. The attorney general seemed a good fit because of his involvement in health care transactions and the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted last year.
"Mike is someone with a great deal of experience with the complexities of implementing that law and a great interest in it, which will be very important to some of our strategic clients," Schlaybaugh said.
"Many federal and state government agencies are also involved in aspects of these laws, and navigating that will be a high-demand area. In that way, I think he dovetails with our firm's needs very nicely."
Cox's health care practice will focus on client responses to increased compliance and tougher anti-fraud policies stemming from the Affordable Care Act, violations of the federal Stark Law or False Claims Act and responses to inquiries from the Office of the Health Services inspector general.
Related listings
-
Sen. George LeMieux returns to law firm
Notable Attorneys 01/02/2011U.S. Sen. George LeMieux will return to Gunster law firm after leaving office.H. William Perry, the firm's CEO and managing partner, announced Tuesday that LeMieux will resume his legal practice Jan. 4 and provide corporate counseling to the firm's c...
-
David Boies Urges ABA Members
Notable Attorneys 08/09/2010David Boies challenged America’s lawyers to “bring the rule of law to its full fruition here in this country … to fulfill the goals and lofty rhetoric of our founding fathers,” as the keynote speaker at the Opening Assembly of the 2010 ABA Annual Mee...
-
Clinton: Look beyond judges for high court pick
Notable Attorneys 04/19/2010Bill Clinton says someone who hasn't been a judge should be considered for the Supreme Court. But scratch the idea of the ex-president or his wife as a justice.Clinton suggested that President Barack Obama follow a model that Clinton used when he tri...
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.