Steve Bruzonsky - Arizona\'s get well, get on with life attorney Peer Review Rated Steve Bruzonsky - Arizona\'s get well, get on with life attorney






Steven J. Bruzonsky

Attorney At Law

Law Office of
Steven J. Bruzonsky
917 E. San Angelo Ave.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
480-969-3003

Call 480-969-3003

 

Please note that Attorney Bruzonsky has been doing this regular “Liens Corner” column since April 2006. His last “Liens Corner” article was for the November/December 2017 issue of The Advocate, having stepped down from this regular column, as he now works part-time (and is part-time retired) exclusively handling large subrogation/lien claims in very large personal injury and medical malpractice cases for other attorneys. However, attorney Bruzonsky may add notes to this website under the subject lien article headers from time to time. (Please keep in mind that this site contains general information for educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advise, which can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiair with all the facts and circumstances of your specific case and relevant law.) 

 

 

2014-03/04: The Kobold Case (Division One, Az Court of Appeals)

June 25th, 2016 12:03:11 pm


This article has been published in “The Advocate”, a monthly publication of the Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, March – April 2014 issue, @2014 by Steven J. Bruzonsky, Esq.

 

Updates On Various Types of Lien Issues

 

FEHBA Liens:  The U.S. Supreme Court, in Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh,547 U.S. 677 (2006), affirmed the Second Circuit and District Court dismissals for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction of an FEHBA  lien claim. The wording of the opinion certainly gives support to the proposition that in regard to FEHBA lien claims, there is no federal court jurisdiction, no federal question presented, and no federal preemption of state anti-subrogation law.

 

In Kobold v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 309 P.3d 924, 233 Ariz. 190 (Sept. 5, 2013), Division One, Arizona Court of appeals, held that (1) McVeigh did not decide whether contract-based reimbursement rights fall within the FEHBA preemption clause, and that (2) the FEHBA and its Section 902’s preemption clause does not preempt Arizona law governing contract-based subrogation rights. (In the underlying Maricopa County Superior Court case, the court granted summary judgment that a FEHBA healthplan subrogation and reimbursement provision is unenforceable based upon the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in McVeigh and Arizona anti-subrogation case law, also awarding attorney’s fees against the health plan.)



Return to Articles

© Copyright 2006, Steven J. Bruzonsky, Attorney
Terms of Use: This site contains general information for educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advise, which can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of your specific case and relevant law. If you use this site, or send information or e-mail the attorney, such action does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advise please personally consult with an experienced attorney like Steven J. Bruzonsky.