The law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Robert Finley has been appointed to serve as a member of the Illinois State Bar Association's (ISBA) Health Care Law Section.

The U.S. law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce the publication of the Third Edition of its 50 State Primer on Medicaid Recovery Laws authored by Hinshaw partner Robert J. Finley. The publication is intended to provide a brief introduction to Medicaid Recovery laws and act as a practical reference guide for insurance, legal, or medical service providers on Medicaid reimbursement or subrogation claims, or Medicaid compliance issues.

| Download a copy of the primer (PDF) |

Read insights from Hinshaw partners Robert Finley and Frank Mazzagatti about the implications of proposed Medicaid work requirements.

Hinshaw's Robert Finley published an article titled "Seeing Double: The Inextricably Intertwined Case(s) of Mr. Centeno a/k/a Mr. Morales" in the Illinois State Bar Association's Section on Workers' Compensation Law Newsletter. In the article, Finley explores the "interesting and paramount" case  of a workers' compensation petitioner with an alleged double identity. He reviews how the case presented a "twisted puzzle" that tested multiple issues, including the scope of Commission powers, award enforcement procedures, and additional compensation for penalties and attorney fees.

The intended effect of HB1698 is to reduce employer medical costs, limit indemnity payouts on certain claims including loss of trade cases, strengthen rules on fraud, and provide more equity in Commission decisions and awards.

Hinshaw partner Robert Finley will co-present on a virtual panel titled “Litigants Perspectives on Resolving Conditional Payments with Private Plans” at the RISE Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) World 2024 event on May 30, 2024.

Hinshaw partner Robert Finley will co-present "Don't Be the Villain – False Claims Act" on November 9, 2023, at the 2023 National Medicare Secondary Payer Network (MSPN) Annual Educational Conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

Hinshaw partner Robert J. Finley is scheduled to co-present on "Personal Injury Settlement Strategies: Reckoning With Medicaid Reimbursement From Payments for Future Medical Care" on November 8, 2023. The CLE webinar will discuss the impact of Gallardo v. Marstiller, 142 S. Ct. 1751 (2022). The panel will provide state-specific guidance for addressing Medicaid’s expanded sources of reimbursement, offer strategies addressing existing and pending settlements, and discuss the new challenges in personal injury cases involving future medical expenses.

Hinshaw partner Robert Finley is scheduled to co-present the Strafford CLE webinar titled "Personal Injury Settlement Strategies: Navigating Medicaid's Anti-Lien Provisions" on November 11, 2025.

Hinshaw partner Robert Finley will present at the 4th Annual RISE Medicare Secondary Payer Conditional Payment Forum, scheduled to take place July 27 – 28, 2020. A virtual event this year, the Forum will focus on minimizing regulatory and legal exposure. A summary of Finley's presentations follows below.

With CMS expanding MSP compliance for personal injury claimants, it's more critical than ever to ensure full compliance to avoid exposure from Medicare for claim-related, post-settlement medical expenses.

Every medical malpractice carrier and, in fact, all insurers, as well as hospitals, clinics, physicians, risk managers, and litigators, need to be aware of a new Illinois statute that took effect on January 1, 2014. The new statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-2301, drastically affects settlements and the penalties for non-compliance are significant. The Act has numerous ramifications to settlements, including negotiations, settlement offers, liens, settlement and release terms, and timing of payments, amongst other matters.

On February 5, 2024, New York State Senator Hoylman-Sigal once again brought forth the Grieving Families Act ("GFA") in its latest iteration: Senate Bill 2024-S8485. Continue reading for how this latest version of the act would potentially impact New York wrongful death claims and filings.

On May 22, 2020, the Illinois legislature overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill that creates COVID-19 workers' compensation protection for certain workers considered "essential" under the Governor's stay-at-home order. The bill provides that for COVID-19 first responders and front-line workers who are infected with the coronavirus, "the exposure and contraction shall be rebuttably presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of the employee's first responder or front-line worker employment and the injury or occupational disease shall be rebuttably presumed to be causally connected to the hazards or exposures of the employee's first responder or front-line worker employment."

Supreme Court Rejects Massive Class Action Against Wal-MartIn a highly anticipated ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al. (S. Ct. June 20, 2011). Plaintiffs claimed that the discretion afforded to local store managers over pay and promotions had an unfair, discriminatory impact on female employees. The proposed class in the case covered approximately 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart employees, and would have involved billions of dollars in potential damages. The Court’s opinion hinged on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which regulates class actions. Among other things, Rule 23 requires that the claims of all potential class members share a common issue of law or fact. Here, that would require evidence that women were the victim of one common discriminatory practice. With respect to this issue, the Court recognized that sufficient commonality might be established where an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination through which discrimination occurred via entirely subjective decision-making processes, it made clear that such a showing must rest on “substantial proof.” Moreover, the Court recognized that allowing such discretion is a common, presumptively reasonable business practice that raises no inference of discriminatory conduct. The Court then held that plaintiffs’ proffered statistical evidence regarding national and regional data did little to explain whether discrimination was occurring at a store-by-store level. Moreover, the Court held that testimony from a small number of potential class members was insufficient to establish that the claims of the named class members shared anything in common with other members of the proposed class. The significance of this aspect of the Court’s opinion cannot be overstated. Without requiring a thorough evidentiary showing before a class can be certified based on the amorphous concept of managerial discretion, it would be possible to string together loosely connected claims into large class actions too costly to defend on the merits.In a portion of its opinion joined in by all of the justices, the Court held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages. This aspect of the Court’s holding was not surprising. But it is important because it forces employees to seek certification through the more rigorous standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), which requires heightened analysis by a court regarding the appropriateness of class certification.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al. (S. Ct. June 20, 2011)

Executive Order Requires Posted Notice Detailing Employees’ Right to OrganizeOn January 30, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13496, creating new obligations for government contractors and subcontractors. The Order’s stated purpose is to keep employees informed of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in an effort to see government contracts “performed by contractors whose work will not be interrupted by labor unrest.” Employers that are covered by the Order will be required to “post a notice of such size and in such form, and containing such content as the United States Secretary of Labor shall prescribe, in conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices where employees covered by the NLRA engage in activities relating to the performance of the contract.” The United States Department of Labor’s rule proposal seeking to implement the Order mandates that the notice: outline “the fundamental rights regarding union activity and collective bargaining that employees have under the NLRA; provide examples of conduct that is illegal under the NLRA; and provide contact information in the event that an employee suspects that the law has been violated.” If an employer fails to post this notice, its “contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts.” Exemptions can be granted where the Secretary of Labor finds that the purpose of the Order would not be served in requiring the notice. Notably, the Order revokes President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13201, which required notice to employees of their rights not to join a union and not to pay agency fees for nonrepresentational union expenditures. Employers that are subject to Executive Order 13496 should prepare to post notices proponing union activity in order to keep their contracts, and should be ready for any repercussions that the notice might have. Executive Order 13496 as of January 30, 2009