Peter Madoff pleads guilty in NYC, blames brother
Recent Cases
In pleading guilty to criminal charges, Peter Madoff portrayed himself as a victim of a domineering older brother who he revered right up until an evening in December 2008 when his sibling revealed that his wildly successful investment business was a sham that lost its customers their nearly $20 billion investment.
"I was in total shock," Madoff said Friday as he described the confession by his older brother, Bernard. "My world was destroyed. I lost everything I worked for."
The 66-year-old Madoff, saying he was "deeply ashamed and terribly sorry," spoke angrily about his 74-year-old brother, who is serving a 150-year prison term after admitting his creation of the largest known Ponzi scheme.
"My family was torn apart as a result of my brother's atrocious conduct," he said. "I was reviled by strangers as well as friends who assumed that I knew about the Ponzi scheme."
He said his brother had made it clear that he would never become a partner in the business where he had worked since 1966, even as he was showered with tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other financial gifts. He made him the investment business's chief compliance officer.
Related listings
-
Court: Madoff's brother to plead guilty in NY
Recent Cases 06/27/2012The brother of Ponzi scheme king Bernard Madoff will plead guilty on Friday to conspiracy and falsifying records, admitting his role in the multibillion-dollar fraud that destroyed the savings of thousands of investors, prosecutors told a judge on We...
-
Supreme Court says tribes must be fully reimbursed
Recent Cases 06/18/2012The Supreme Court says the government must fully reimburse Native American tribes for money they spent on federal programs. The federal government had agreed to fully reimburse money tribes spent on programs like law enforcement, environmental protec...
-
Senate confirms Arizona jurist to 9th Circuit
Recent Cases 06/13/2012An Arizona Supreme Court justice was confirmed as a U.S. appellate judge Tuesday, despite complaints from conservatives that he influenced the Roe v. Wade ruling while a law clerk four decades ago. The Senate confirmed Andrew David Hurwitz by voice v...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0096f/0096fc8e9a6fca7cdd0ea81063fccc031be46cea" alt=""
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.