.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert

Presented by the Medicare Set-Aside Practice

June 10, 2022

by Anthony Natale III

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision affirming Medicaid’s right to seek reimbursement from a settlement amount allocated for past and future medical care. In Gallardo v. Marstiller, Gallardo suffered catastrophic injuries, resulting in permanent disability, when a truck struck her while exiting a school bus. Florida’s Medicaid agency paid initial medical expenses and continues to pay medical expenses related to this accident. Gallardo sued the owner and driver of the truck and the county school board. The litigation resulted in a settlement for $800,000.00, with $35,367.52 being allocated to past medical expenses. The settlement failed to allocate any amount for future medical expenses.

The Medicaid Act requires participating states to pay for needy individuals’ medical costs and then make reasonable efforts to recoup those costs from liable third parties. Florida’s Medicaid Third Party Liability Act automatically assigned to the state agency any right to third-party payments for “medical care.” This Florida statute allowed the agency to a portion of the tort recovery that is presumptively for “past and future medical expenses.”

Gallardo challenged the presumptive allocation and brought a law suit arguing that Florida was violating the Medicaid Act by trying to recover portions of the settlement compensating her for future medical expenses. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that a state is not prevented by the Medicaid Act from seeking such reimbursement. The Court agreed, noting that nothing in the Medicaid Act or lien provision limits such a mode of relief.

This decision reinforces perhaps a forgotten point to ponder in any workers’ compensation settlement. While a major focus has been on considering Medicare’s interests when a settlement involves future medical care, do not lose sight of Medicaid’s potential lien in your settlement analyses.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.