Court won't hear restitution claim in Ponzi case
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from investment funds seeking repayment of their losses in a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Minnesota businessman Thomas Petters.
The funds together lost $165 million and challenged a federal judge's order denying restitution to any of Petters' victims. Among other things, the court said the victims would have other ways of recouping some of their money.
The justices on Monday refused to disturb the ruling.
A federal law generally requires a court to order restitution as part of a defendant's sentence, but allows for some exceptions. The judge in this case said that restitution would be too complex, take too long and result in the payment of less than a penny for each dollar victims lost.
Related listings
-
Court orders reconsideration of parole judgment
Recent Cases 06/13/2011The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to release a criminal on parole. The high court threw out a lower court decision ordering John Pirtle and other prisoners released from prison on parole. Pirtle was convicted of k...
-
NY jury convicts 3 in NYC hedge fund trial
Recent Cases 06/12/2011The second trial to result from a massive investigation into insider trading at hedge funds ended Monday with the conviction of a trio of Wall Street traders on charges they paid hefty bribes to coax confidential information out of shady lawyers. A j...
-
Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case
Recent Cases 06/11/2011The first lawsuit to go to trial in a massive class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration problems that led the company to recall 14 million cars will involve a crash that killed two people in western Utah, a federal judge said Friday. ...
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.