This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Medical Care Recovery: How the


Government Recovers for Medical Expenses by Walter Parker


Walter Parker, a native of Maryland, graduated magna cum laude from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 1994 and Order of the Coif from the University of Maryland School of law in 1997. After graduation, he joined the U.S. Army and completed the


Judge Advocate Basic Course at the Judge Advocate General’s School in 1998. He served as a legal assistance attorney, claims attorney, trial counsel and Special Assistant United States Attorney at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey for three years. Thereafter, he was assigned to the United States Army Claims Service at Fort Meade, Maryland to work claims filed against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. After six years on active duty, he accepted a civilian position at the Army Claims Service in 2004. He continues to serve in the Army Reserves where he works as a trial defense counsel. He is married and has two children.


A client walks into your office and ex- plains how she was injured in an automobile accident that included her husband and children as passengers. Af- ter getting as many facts about the accident as possible, you ask her about their injuries and treatment. Your client tells you that she is a soldier and that, al- though she was initially treated at Baltimore Washington Medical Center’s emergency department, she received all of her follow up care from Kimbrough Am- bulatory Care Center at Fort George G. Meade. She tells you that her family re- ceives care from civilian providers through TRICARE.


If you have little to no experience with the military, just understanding the mili- tary jargon and acronyms used by your soldier client can be confusing; add to that some uniquely Federal issues and a simple motor vehicle accident can become in- timidating. This article will provide you practical and legal guidance for handling common personal injury cases in which the United States asserts the equivalent of


a private health insurance company’s lien. The United States spends millions of dollars on medical care for soldiers, retir- ees, their family members and others entitled to care at government expense. When these beneficiaries are injured due to the negligent acts of a third party, the United States seeks to recover the mon- etary value of the medical care provided from the third party or the third party’s insurance policy. On the surface, a gov- ernment claim might seem very similar to a private health insurance company’s lien, but legally and practically there are significant differences. The legal differ- ences stem from the origins of the right of the United States to collect for medical care provided to beneficiaries of Federal health care programs. In 1850, the Supreme Court recognized that the United States had the same legal right as any other legal entity to assert a cause of action for tortious damage to its property interests. Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 229 (1850). With this guiding principle, the military began to


STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS 


Lou Omansky, J.D., C.S.S.C. Richard Ryan, C.S.S.C. Kenneth Clemmens


Suite 101 4 Reservoir Circle Baltimore, MD 21208


410-602-1042 800-531-1042


FAX 410-602-1101 32


The only consultant you need. Trial Reporter


assert claims in favor of the United States that were analogous to a master’s claim for tortious injury to the servant. During World War II, the War Department as- serted claims against any person who tortiously injured a member of the mili- tary. The monetary damages sought were traditionally for the cost of the medical care and for the wages paid during the service member’s incapacitation. In February 1944, an enlisted soldier


was struck by a Standard Oil of Califor- nia truck. The Army asserted a claim against Standard Oil for the cost of medi- cal treatment ($123.25), and for the soldier’s pay during his hospitalization ($69.31). Standard Oil settled with the injured party but refused to pay the Army. The Army sued and the case made its way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that although the government’s right at issue derived from common law tort, Federal law determined whether that right existed. Finding no applicable Federal law, the Supreme Court found that the United States had no right of recovery unless and until Congress acted. (United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1947).) On September 25, 1962, Congress fi- nally acted and passed the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA), codified at Title 42, United States Code, Sections 2651 through 2653, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law Number 104-201, Section 1075, 110 Statute 2422. It applies to active or retired members of the Uniformed Services and their imme- diate family members. The statute sets out three requirements for the United States to recover costs for medical care it provided. First, the United States must be authorized or required by law to fur- nish or pay for the medical care and for active duty Uniformed Services wages it seeks to recover. Next, the person who received the medical care must have suf-


(Continued on page 34) Winter 2006


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52