Ex-Lottery Commissioner Loses Conviction Appeal
Recent Cases
The 4th Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing of ex-North Carolina lottery commissioner Kevin Geddings, who concealed the fact that he had a conflict of interest with a lottery vendor.
A federal jury convicted Geddings of five counts of mail fraud for concealing his business relationship with Scientific Games, a vendor vying to operate the North Carolina state lottery.
After being appointed lottery commissioner, Geddings emailed his secretary and told her never to acknowledge over the phone that Scientific Games "is a client." As a lottery commissioner, he was supposed to provide an unbiased vote in determining which vendors run the state lottery.
Although Geddings had recused himself from voting on lottery vendors, he continued to receive money from Scientific Games and circulated negative articles about competing bidder, GTech.
Geddings' run as commissioner ended after the U.S. district attorney's office in North Carolina launched an investigation of the state lottery, forcing Scientific Games to disclose its payment records. Geddings resigned on Nov. 1, 2001.
The appeals court unanimously upheld his conviction and 48-month jail sentence for using mail and wire services to "defraud the citizens of North Carolina of his honest services." It held that jurors and the trial court judge acted reasonably in holding him accountable.
Related listings
-
Skycaps File National Class Action
Recent Cases 05/16/2008Employers are cheating airport skycaps nationwide by paying them less than minimum wage and discouraging tipping by charging a $2 per bag "baggage fee," which customers falsely believe will be given to the skycaps, the skycaps say in a federal class ...
-
Avandia Securities Class Action Dismissed
Recent Cases 05/15/2008A federal judge dismissed a shareholders' class-action complaint that accused GlaxoSmithKline of violating securities laws by withholding or manipulating information about its heart drug Avandia. U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton dismissed for failur...
-
Class Claims MetLife Cheats By Assuming Kids Will Smoke
Recent Cases 05/13/2008Metropolitan Life Insurance defrauds customers by illicitly and secretively applying smokers' rates to children who don't smoke, claiming that by the time they are adults the kids will be smokers, a class action claims in Middlesex County Court. Plai...
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.