Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chill@... writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 You might call the Oregon State Bar 503-620-0222 and ask about this. Often with an insurance company they will have their insured / your patient, sign a trust agreement saying they will be paid back but they will also allow a reduction for attorney feesm usually 1/3. I have not heard of this with a private treating doctor although sometimes a phone call is made to the doctor , especially in low payout cases, to ask for a reduction. I don’t know if this can be done automatically without your consent upfront. The letter does say to return the check if you don’t agree that it is a full payout to you. This may be a way to ‘test’ you. s. fuchs dc From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of dkollardc@... Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:20 PM Oregondcs Subject: attorney letter I have attached a pdf document of a letter that was sent to me by an attorney who represents a patient of mine in a MVA. She did not have PIP so we waited for the at fault settlement. I was set to testify when I received a phone call the day of the trial and stated it was rescheduled and I was not to report to court. 6 weeks later here is this letter. I have been doing this for 10 years and have never heard of an attorney taking 1/3 of my bill to compensate for his time in getting the settlement. So can any of the attorneys out there give me a bit of insight? I have blocked out all personal info including the attorney. thanks in advance. Kollar, DC Allied Chiropractic Hillsboro, Oregon 503 681-8125 Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 This happened to me last year. I sent one nice letter letting them know that I do not cut my bills unless the attorney is also cutting his/her bill. After that I sent a 72 hour demand letter threatening to take the attorney to small claims court and report them to the bar. We got paid the next day.If they push it fill out all the small claims court paperwork and fax it to their office at 71 hours. If you would like my letters to use contact me off list.S R. Swanson DC CCEPParkside Chiropractic2394 31st AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94116(v)415.566.7134(f)415.566.8702www.ParksideChiro.com On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, dkollardc@... wrote:I have attached a pdf document of a letter that was sent to me by an attorney who represents a patient of mine in a MVA. She did not have PIP so we waited for the at fault settlement. I was set to testify when I received a phone call the day of the trial and stated it was rescheduled and I was not to report to court. 6 weeks later here is this letter. I have been doing this for 10 years and have never heard of an attorney taking 1/3 of my bill to compensate for his time in getting the settlement. So can any of the attorneys out there give me a bit of insight? I have blocked out all personal info including the attorney. thanks in advance. Kollar, DCAllied ChiropracticHillsboro, Oregon503 681-8125Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! <attorney letter.pdf> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 This happened to me last year. I sent one nice letter letting them know that I do not cut my bills unless the attorney is also cutting his/her bill. After that I sent a 72 hour demand letter threatening to take the attorney to small claims court and report them to the bar. We got paid the next day.If they push it fill out all the small claims court paperwork and fax it to their office at 71 hours. If you would like my letters to use contact me off list.S R. Swanson DC CCEPParkside Chiropractic2394 31st AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94116(v)415.566.7134(f)415.566.8702www.ParksideChiro.com On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM, dkollardc@... wrote:I have attached a pdf document of a letter that was sent to me by an attorney who represents a patient of mine in a MVA. She did not have PIP so we waited for the at fault settlement. I was set to testify when I received a phone call the day of the trial and stated it was rescheduled and I was not to report to court. 6 weeks later here is this letter. I have been doing this for 10 years and have never heard of an attorney taking 1/3 of my bill to compensate for his time in getting the settlement. So can any of the attorneys out there give me a bit of insight? I have blocked out all personal info including the attorney. thanks in advance. Kollar, DCAllied ChiropracticHillsboro, Oregon503 681-8125Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! <attorney letter.pdf> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chill@...www.cthlaw.com PS good job at blacking out the name and address, I want to know who it is! -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of Sharron FuchsSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: RE: attorney letter You might call the Oregon State Bar 503-620-0222 and ask about this. Often with an insurance company they will have their insured / your patient, sign a trust agreement saying they will be paid back but they will also allow a reduction for attorney feesm usually 1/3. I have not heard of this with a private treating doctor although sometimes a phone call is made to the doctor , especially in low payout cases, to ask for a reduction. I don’t know if this can be done automatically without your consent upfront. The letter does say to return the check if you don’t agree that it is a full payout to you. This may be a way to ‘test’ you. s. fuchs dc From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of dkollardcaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:20 PMOregondcs Subject: attorney letter I have attached a pdf document of a letter that was sent to me by an attorney who represents a patient of mine in a MVA. She did not have PIP so we waited for the at fault settlement. I was set to testify when I received a phone call the day of the trial and stated it was rescheduled and I was not to report to court. 6 weeks later here is this letter. I have been doing this for 10 years and have never heard of an attorney taking 1/3 of my bill to compensate for his time in getting the settlement. So can any of the attorneys out there give me a bit of insight? I have blocked out all personal info including the attorney. thanks in advance. Kollar, DCAllied ChiropracticHillsboro, Oregon503 681-8125 Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chill@...www.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWoman@...Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchill@...; sharronf@...; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I can't help myself here, so I'm going to weigh in, knowing that my theories (which are mine) might result in lower attorneys fees. I don't think the "common fund" doctrine applies to this type of situation. The common fund doctrine applies where a third party claims an interest "through the injured party" against the wrongdoer. For example, if my health insurance pays my medical bills for my broken leg and my broken leg was legally caused by Doe's negligence, then my insurance company would have a derivative subrogation claim against Doe. The insurance company's rights flow through me against Doe. If I don't sue Doe, my insurance company theoretically could sue Doe on its own (its contract with me provides that it is subrogated to my rights of recovery for the amounts it paid). Now if I sue Doe and make demand for all my damages, including that which my insurance company paid, and I end up collecting what my insurance company paid in medical expenses, then the common fund doctrine will apply and require my insurance company to pay its proportionate share of attorneys fees and costs. The reason is that its interest flowed through me, and my interest is subject to attorneys fees and costs. The insurance company has a legally enforceable right in the case and can even bring its own independent cause of action against Doe. Outstanding medical expenses are an entirely different creature. If I still owe Providence Hospital for my broken bone surgery and I don't feel like suing Doe, Providence Hospital cannot sue Doe either independently or on my behalf. Doe does not owe Providence a dime--he is not liable to my doctors under any normal theory (now that's not necessarily entirely true, but it would take pages for me to explain the reasons for the exceptions. The chiropractor in this case could not have sued the at fault driver for the patient's outstanding balance, and that is a very material difference that renders the common fund doctrine inapplicable. The doctor in the listserve case simply agreed to await payment and forgo collection efforts pending the resolution of a personal injury case. If the patient lost the case, the patient is still liable to the doctor for the balance. That does not give the lawyer the right to charge the doctor attorneys fees on the outstanding balance (and my opinion on the matter might irritate some lawyers). The doctor does not owe attorneys fees. That's the end of the story. Perhaps under the circumstances of the case, the doctor "ought" to permit the balance to be reduced by 1/3, but that depends upon the facts of the case, and whether the doctor agrees that settling for something is better than rolling the dice in a courtroom and possibly getting nothing and having a viable patient debt that the doctor knows is never going to be paid. There are many cases where a doctor "ought" to permit an attorney to charge a fee on an outstanding balance (or otherwise agree to reduce a balance), but that is something that ought to be discussed up front with the doctor and the client/patient before the case is settled. For example, if there's a $250.00 scratch on the bumper, an IME cut off, and thousands of dollars of outstanding chiropractic bills, then the whole point of the entire case might be to get as many of the bills paid as possible in such a way that the client/patient gets something. In that type of case, the lawyer might not be able to get paid much at all unless compromises are made by healthcare providers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the doctor "owes" attorneys fees under the facts as I understand them. Whether the doctor "ought" to agree to reduce the balance by 1/3 in the facts of the particular case is another matter. G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of HillSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:15 PMAboWoman@...; sharronf@...; Subject: RE: attorney letter Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chillcthlawwww.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWomanaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchillcthlaw; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 So may I ask what is my right to call the patient and inform them of the situation? Is it possible that they are unaware of this offer? And may I add a bit more on this case that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the first time that he has tried this with this case. I participated in an arbitration a year ago for this case that went well. A month later he sent me a check for the amount of $1200, with similiar wording, never personally asking me to take a cut. I called him and told him that I am entiltled to the full amount and returned the check. Then court rolls around. He doesn't give me 24 hour notice about the "re schedule" (or was it an offer?). I spent time preparing and now feel that I should hammer him for those fees as well ( I was assuming that I was going to go back to court and would have him pay my fee then). But I now feel that this too will be an issue. The -patient has always been nice and I believe that she wants me to be paid in full, but I have not spoken with her in over a year. I do not want to accept settlement because the case was a decent case! I made that case for them! Kollar, DC Allied Chiropractic Hillsboro, Oregon 503 681-8125 Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it? Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 O.k., so here's what you do to solve the problem. The next time an injured person comes into your office who needs an attorney, strongly suggest that they give either Hill or a call, a couple of lawyers you met on the listserve. Best, G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: dkollardc@... [mailto:dkollardc@...] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:25 PM ; chill@...; AboWoman@...; sharronf@...; Subject: Re: attorney letter So may I ask what is my right to call the patient and inform them of the situation? Is it possible that they are unaware of this offer? And may I add a bit more on this case that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the first time that he has tried this with this case. I participated in an arbitration a year ago for this case that went well. A month later he sent me a check for the amount of $1200, with similiar wording, never personally asking me to take a cut. I called him and told him that I am entiltled to the full amount and returned the check. Then court rolls around. He doesn't give me 24 hour notice about the "re schedule" (or was it an offer?). I spent time preparing and now feel that I should hammer him for those fees as well ( I was assuming that I was going to go back to court and would have him pay my fee then). But I now feel that this too will be an issue.The -patient has always been nice and I believe that she wants me to be paid in full, but I have not spoken with her in over a year. I do not want to accept settlement because the case was a decent case! I made that case for them! Kollar, DCAllied ChiropracticHillsboro, Oregon503 681-8125 RE: attorney letter I can't help myself here, so I'm going to weigh in, knowing that my theories (which are mine) might result in lower attorneys fees. I don't think the "common fund" doctrine applies to this type of situation. The common fund doctrine applies where a third party claims an interest "through the injured party" against the wrongdoer. For example, if my health insurance pays my medical bills for my broken leg and my broken leg was legally caused by Doe's negligence, then my insurance company would have a derivative subrogation claim against Doe. The insurance company's rights flow through me against Doe. If I don't sue Doe, my insurance company theoretically could sue Doe on its own (its contract with me provides that it is subrogated to my rights of recovery for the amounts it paid). Now if I sue Doe and make demand for all my damages, including that which my insurance company paid, and I end up collecting what my insurance company paid in medical expenses, then the common fund doctrine will apply and require my insurance company to pay its proportionate share of attorneys fees and costs. The reason is that its interest flowed through me, and my interest is subject to attorneys fees and costs. The insurance company has a legally enforceable right in the case and can even bring its own independent cause of action against Doe. Outstanding medical expenses are an entirely different creature. If I still owe Providence Hospital for my broken bone surgery and I don't feel like suing Doe, Providence Hospital cannot sue Doe either independently or on my behalf. Doe does not owe Providence a dime--he is not liable to my doctors under any normal theory (now that's not necessarily entirely true, but it would take pages for me to explain the reasons for the exceptions. The chiropractor in this case could not have sued the at fault driver for the patient's outstanding balance, and that is a very material difference that renders the common fund doctrine inapplicable. The doctor in the listserve case simply agreed to await payment and forgo collection efforts pending the resolution of a personal injury case. If the patient lost the case, the patient is still liable to the doctor for the balance. That does not give the lawyer the right to charge the doctor attorneys fees on the outstanding balance (and my opinion on the matter might irritate some lawyers). The doctor does not owe attorneys fees. That's the end of the story. Perhaps under the circumstances of the case, the doctor "ought" to permit the balance to be reduced by 1/3, but that depends upon the facts of the case, and whether the doctor agrees that settling for something is better than rolling the dice in a courtroom and possibly getting nothing and having a viable patient debt that the doctor knows is never going to be paid. There are many cases where a doctor "ought" to permit an attorney to charge a fee on an outstanding balance (or otherwise agree to reduce a balance), but that is something that ought to be discussed up front with the doctor and the client/patient before the case is settled. For example, if there's a $250.00 scratch on the bumper, an IME cut off, and thousands of dollars of outstanding chiropractic bills, then the whole point of the entire case might be to get as many of the bills paid as possible in such a way that the client/patient gets something. In that type of case, the lawyer might not be able to get paid much at all unless compromises are made by healthcare providers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the doctor "owes" attorneys fees under the facts as I understand them. Whether the doctor "ought" to agree to reduce the balance by 1/3 in the facts of the particular case is another matter. G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of HillSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:15 PMAboWomanaol; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: RE: attorney letter Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chillcthlawwww.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWomanaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchillcthlaw; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 I'd have to agree with that (after reading it twice. now i know why i'm not an attorney). I'm looking at a lien on my desk right now that states : "I further understand and agree that Spine Tree is not responsible for paying any of my attorney fees and Spine Tree does not agree to pay my attorney fees for honoring this agreement between me and the Spine Tree." However, obviously there are some exceptions. If the doctor can help out by not significantly lowering his bill and prevent the attorney from taking the patient to collections for a negligable amount, it should be considered by the doctor. These things should be discussed with the doctor. Additionally and ultimately the attorney can reject the case if the projection doesnt look good. Plenty of docs do just that. Those that do take these cases enter a contract with the patient at a risk. I mean if a court says for instance they will pay the med bills, but the patient isn't entitled to a settlement why would we be responsible to the attorney that worked the case?? Dr. Kollar, In your situation with this particular attorney, i would take the hardline. You made the case, you did the work and the attorney doesnt have the respect to call you and discuss the issue?? Send it back. ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropractic1607 NE Alberta St. PDX, OR 97211www.spinetreepdx.com RE: attorney letter I can't help myself here, so I'm going to weigh in, knowing that my theories (which are mine) might result in lower attorneys fees. I don't think the "common fund" doctrine applies to this type of situation. The common fund doctrine applies where a third party claims an interest "through the injured party" against the wrongdoer. For example, if my health insurance pays my medical bills for my broken leg and my broken leg was legally caused by Doe's negligence, then my insurance company would have a derivative subrogation claim against Doe. The insurance company's rights flow through me against Doe. If I don't sue Doe, my insurance company theoretically could sue Doe on its own (its contract with me provides that it is subrogated to my rights of recovery for the amounts it paid). Now if I sue Doe and make demand for all my damages, including that which my insurance company paid, and I end up collecting what my insurance company paid in medical expenses, then the common fund doctrine will apply and require my insurance company to pay its proportionate share of attorneys fees and costs. The reason is that its interest flowed through me, and my interest is subject to attorneys fees and costs. The insurance company has a legally enforceable right in the case and can even bring its own independent cause of action against Doe. Outstanding medical expenses are an entirely different creature. If I still owe Providence Hospital for my broken bone surgery and I don't feel like suing Doe, Providence Hospital cannot sue Doe either independently or on my behalf. Doe does not owe Providence a dime--he is not liable to my doctors under any normal theory (now that's not necessarily entirely true, but it would take pages for me to explain the reasons for the exceptions. The chiropractor in this case could not have sued the at fault driver for the patient's outstanding balance, and that is a very material difference that renders the common fund doctrine inapplicable. The doctor in the listserve case simply agreed to await payment and forgo collection efforts pending the resolution of a personal injury case. If the patient lost the case, the patient is still liable to the doctor for the balance. That does not give the lawyer the right to charge the doctor attorneys fees on the outstanding balance (and my opinion on the matter might irritate some lawyers). The doctor does not owe attorneys fees. That's the end of the story. Perhaps under the circumstances of the case, the doctor "ought" to permit the balance to be reduced by 1/3, but that depends upon the facts of the case, and whether the doctor agrees that settling for something is better than rolling the dice in a courtroom and possibly getting nothing and having a viable patient debt that the doctor knows is never going to be paid. There are many cases where a doctor "ought" to permit an attorney to charge a fee on an outstanding balance (or otherwise agree to reduce a balance), but that is something that ought to be discussed up front with the doctor and the client/patient before the case is settled. For example, if there's a $250.00 scratch on the bumper, an IME cut off, and thousands of dollars of outstanding chiropractic bills, then the whole point of the entire case might be to get as many of the bills paid as possible in such a way that the client/patient gets something. In that type of case, the lawyer might not be able to get paid much at all unless compromises are made by healthcare providers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the doctor "owes" attorneys fees under the facts as I understand them. Whether the doctor "ought" to agree to reduce the balance by 1/3 in the facts of the particular case is another matter. G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of HillSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:15 PMAboWomanaol; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: RE: attorney letter Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chillcthlawwww.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWomanaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchillcthlaw; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Clear as mudd!!!!! RE: attorney letter I can't help myself here, so I'm going to weigh in, knowing that my theories (which are mine) might result in lower attorneys fees. I don't think the "common fund" doctrine applies to this type of situation. The common fund doctrine applies where a third party claims an interest "through the injured party" against the wrongdoer. For example, if my health insurance pays my medical bills for my broken leg and my broken leg was legally caused by Doe's negligence, then my insurance company would have a derivative subrogation claim against Doe. The insurance company's rights flow through me against Doe. If I don't sue Doe, my insurance company theoretically could sue Doe on its own (its contract with me provides that it is subrogated to my rights of recovery for the amounts it paid). Now if I sue Doe and make demand for all my damages, including that which my insurance company paid, and I end up collecting what my insurance company paid in medical expenses, then the common fund doctrine will apply and require my insurance company to pay its proportionate share of attorneys fees and costs. The reason is that its interest flowed through me, and my interest is subject to attorneys fees and costs. The insurance company has a legally enforceable right in the case and can even bring its own independent cause of action against Doe. Outstanding medical expenses are an entirely different creature. If I still owe Providence Hospital for my broken bone surgery and I don't feel like suing Doe, Providence Hospital cannot sue Doe either independently or on my behalf. Doe does not owe Providence a dime--he is not liable to my doctors under any normal theory (now that's not necessarily entirely true, but it would take pages for me to explain the reasons for the exceptions. The chiropractor in this case could not have sued the at fault driver for the patient's outstanding balance, and that is a very material difference that renders the common fund doctrine inapplicable. The doctor in the listserve case simply agreed to await payment and forgo collection efforts pending the resolution of a personal injury case. If the patient lost the case, the patient is still liable to the doctor for the balance. That does not give the lawyer the right to charge the doctor attorneys fees on the outstanding balance (and my opinion on the matter might irritate some lawyers). The doctor does not owe attorneys fees. That's the end of the story. Perhaps under the circumstances of the case, the doctor "ought" to permit the balance to be reduced by 1/3, but that depends upon the facts of the case, and whether the doctor agrees that settling for something is better than rolling the dice in a courtroom and possibly getting nothing and having a viable patient debt that the doctor knows is never going to be paid. There are many cases where a doctor "ought" to permit an attorney to charge a fee on an outstanding balance (or otherwise agree to reduce a balance), but that is something that ought to be discussed up front with the doctor and the client/patient before the case is settled. For example, if there's a $250.00 scratch on the bumper, an IME cut off, and thousands of dollars of outstanding chiropractic bills, then the whole point of the entire case might be to get as many of the bills paid as possible in such a way that the client/patient gets something. In that type of case, the lawyer might not be able to get paid much at all unless compromises are made by healthcare providers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the doctor "owes" attorneys fees under the facts as I understand them. Whether the doctor "ought" to agree to reduce the balance by 1/3 in the facts of the particular case is another matter. G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of HillSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:15 PMAboWomanaol; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: RE: attorney letter Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chillcthlawwww.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWomanaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchillcthlaw; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 That is a fronting tactic for mvas in THIS office! (thankgawdforgatti & gatti!) Sunny ;'-)) Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C Eugene, Oregon, 97401 541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955 dkollardc@...; chill@...; AboWoman@...; sharronf@...; From: msmith@...Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:31:35 -0700Subject: RE: attorney letter O.k., so here's what you do to solve the problem. The next time an injured person comes into your office who needs an attorney, strongly suggest that they give either Hill or a call, a couple of lawyers you met on the listserve. Best, G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: dkollardcaol [mailto:dkollardcaol] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:25 PM ; chillcthlaw; AboWomanaol; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter So may I ask what is my right to call the patient and inform them of the situation? Is it possible that they are unaware of this offer? And may I add a bit more on this case that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the first time that he has tried this with this case. I participated in an arbitration a year ago for this case that went well. A month later he sent me a check for the amount of $1200, with similiar wording, never personally asking me to take a cut. I called him and told him that I am entiltled to the full amount and returned the check. Then court rolls around. He doesn't give me 24 hour notice about the "re schedule" (or was it an offer?). I spent time preparing and now feel that I should hammer him for those fees as well ( I was assuming that I was going to go back to court and would have him pay my fee then). But I now feel that this too will be an issue.The -patient has always been nice and I believe that she wants me to be paid in full, but I have not spoken with her in over a year. I do not want to accept settlement because the case was a decent case! I made that case for them! Kollar, DCAllied ChiropracticHillsboro, Oregon503 681-8125 RE: attorney letter I can't help myself here, so I'm going to weigh in, knowing that my theories (which are mine) might result in lower attorneys fees. I don't think the "common fund" doctrine applies to this type of situation. The common fund doctrine applies where a third party claims an interest "through the injured party" against the wrongdoer. For example, if my health insurance pays my medical bills for my broken leg and my broken leg was legally caused by Doe's negligence, then my insurance company would have a derivative subrogation claim against Doe. The insurance company's rights flow through me against Doe. If I don't sue Doe, my insurance company theoretically could sue Doe on its own (its contract with me provides that it is subrogated to my rights of recovery for the amounts it paid). Now if I sue Doe and make demand for all my damages, including that which my insurance company paid, and I end up collecting what my insurance company paid in medical expenses, then the common fund doctrine will apply and require my insurance company to pay its proportionate share of attorneys fees and costs. The reason is that its interest flowed through me, and my interest is subject to attorneys fees and costs. The insurance company has a legally enforceable right in the case and can even bring its own independent cause of action against Doe. Outstanding medical expenses are an entirely different creature. If I still owe Providence Hospital for my broken bone surgery and I don't feel like suing Doe, Providence Hospital cannot sue Doe either independently or on my behalf. Doe does not owe Providence a dime--he is not liable to my doctors under any normal theory (now that's not necessarily entirely true, but it would take pages for me to explain the reasons for the exceptions. The chiropractor in this case could not have sued the at fault driver for the patient's outstanding balance, and that is a very material difference that renders the common fund doctrine inapplicable. The doctor in the listserve case simply agreed to await payment and forgo collection efforts pending the resolution of a personal injury case. If the patient lost the case, the patient is still liable to the doctor for the balance. That does not give the lawyer the right to charge the doctor attorneys fees on the outstanding balance (and my opinion on the matter might irritate some lawyers). The doctor does not owe attorneys fees. That's the end of the story. Perhaps under the circumstances of the case, the doctor "ought" to permit the balance to be reduced by 1/3, but that depends upon the facts of the case, and whether the doctor agrees that settling for something is better than rolling the dice in a courtroom and possibly getting nothing and having a viable patient debt that the doctor knows is never going to be paid. There are many cases where a doctor "ought" to permit an attorney to charge a fee on an outstanding balance (or otherwise agree to reduce a balance), but that is something that ought to be discussed up front with the doctor and the client/patient before the case is settled. For example, if there's a $250.00 scratch on the bumper, an IME cut off, and thousands of dollars of outstanding chiropractic bills, then the whole point of the entire case might be to get as many of the bills paid as possible in such a way that the client/patient gets something. In that type of case, the lawyer might not be able to get paid much at all unless compromises are made by healthcare providers. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the doctor "owes" attorneys fees under the facts as I understand them. Whether the doctor "ought" to agree to reduce the balance by 1/3 in the facts of the particular case is another matter. G. , Gatti, Gatti, et. al. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of HillSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:15 PMAboWomanaol; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: RE: attorney letter Better to ask than to wonder, Minga, and not a problem for asking, especially with a topic I know irritates a number of docs. The common fund doctrine and the substantial benefit theory are equitable doctrines rather than contracts. They're rooted in notions of fairness which applied in courts of equity back when we had courts of law and courts of equity. In certain circumstances, they are alive and well today. For PIP reimbursement and health insurer reimbursement, they are backup doctrines we use regularly to reduce the reimbursement amounts so the client will net more money. I think the solution for the doc is to get the money from the patient rather than the fund. The patient still owes the doc on the contract. If the doc gets the money from the fund, then the common fund doctrine and substantial benefit theory would probably both apply. As most of you know patients and their money are not always easy to find and getting the money from the patient rather than the fund introduces some risk and hassle for the doc. I will also say I do not like asking docs for a reduction (and you all probably like it even less than I do), and trying to force a fairly large reduction on a doc by sending out a check and letter is not the nicest way to ask. I would be kind of ticked if I got that letter about one of my bills, and I'd expect anyone else to do the same. Chris T. Hill, PC520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-4330Fax: (503) 227-3230chillcthlawwww.cthlaw.com -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of AboWomanaolSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:38 PMchillcthlaw; sharronftdinjurylaw; Subject: Re: attorney letter I understand this rationale, but technically, shouldn't the doctor be allowed to choose to be involved in this contractual agreement PRIOR? It sounds like a contractual agreement between 3 parties, the attny, the 3rd party insurance and the patient. I didn't realize one could be held to a contractual agreement without knowing they're a party to it?Minga Guerrero DC ps not killing the messenger, just happy to have your opinion. In a message dated 9/3/2008 1:37:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, chillcthlaw writes: That looks like an assertion of a reduction under the common fund doctrine or the related theory (whose name escapes right now...). The idea is that the client/ patient paid the attorney to generate a fund of money from which the client and others will benefit, and if the others want a share of that fund, they need to chip in to cover the attorney's fees and costs used to generate the fund. I am not sure the attorney owes the doc anything on the patient's contract with the doc, though for a bill under $5,500.00, I think ORS 20.082 applies and gives the doc a good hammer to enforce the contract against the patient with the threat of fees if litigation starts. It may not be the best marketing decision for future business with that patient though... Chris It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. See Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 Dr. Kollar: I'd pursue this as attempted petty theft under the guise of professional services by the attorney. And certainly get legal opinion prior to any action. IMHO it's a bogus scam. J. Pedersen DC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.