LIENS
Welcome to Synergy’s blog page dedicated to the topic of lien resolution. Our team of subrogation experts share their InSights and knowledge on the latest developments and best practices in lien resolution. Stay up-to-date with the latest trends and strategies to ensure that you have the information you need to navigate the complexities of lien resolution.
Correctly navigating Medicare’s conditional payment resolution process is critical for personal injury attorneys, given the complex legal framework and the substantial risks involved in failure to reimburse. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have broad powers to recover payments made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, including the right to sue trial attorneys directly. Failing to address Medicare’s reimbursement claims correctly can lead to severe financial and legal consequences for personal injury law firms.
MSPA: The Legal Framework
CMS can recover conditional payments from any entity that touches settlement dollars which are meant to reimburse medical expenses, including attorneys who handle personal injury settlements. The case of U.S. v. Harris starkly illustrates the potential pitfalls. In this case, a personal injury attorney was held liable for Medicare’s conditional payments despite settling a claim and notifying Medicare. The court ruled against the attorney, emphasizing that CMS’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) extend to recovering from entities that have received payments from primary plans, a personal injury law attorney.
A Labyrinth: The Medicare Resolution Process
Resolving Medicare’s conditional payments involves several steps:
- Initial Reporting: Contact the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Contractor (BCRC) before settlement to obtain a Conditional Payment Letter (CPL). This letter is preliminary and should be audited to remove unrelated care.
- Final Demand: After settlement, Medicare must be informed, and a Final Demand will then be issued. Payment must be made within 60 days to avoid interest accumulation and potential enforcement actions by the DOJ.
Mistakes to Avoid: Common Pitfalls
There are some common mistakes made by personal injury law firms when it comes to conditional payments. These mistakes can be costly, and it is best to avoid them:
- Relying on Conditional Payment Letters: Conditional Payment Letters are not final. Only a Final Demand Letter from Medicare confirms the amount due and is binding. Relying on preliminary figures can lead to significant shortfalls and legal issues, as evidenced by a 2019 case where a Maryland law firm settled a claim which was based upon reliance on incorrect figures in a Conditional Payment Letter.
- Improper Resolution Channels: Using incorrect methods to resolve conditional payments, such as state court proceedings instead of the required administrative processes, can result in severe repercussions, as seen in a Texas case where a state court ruling was sought to reduce what was owed to Medicare which wasn’t effective. Instead, the trial attorney was sued by the government for failure to properly reimburse Medicare.
Reducing What is Owed: Appeals, Compromises, and Waivers
When dealing with Medicare’s repayment formula, attorneys face a rigid calculation per the applicable regulation. The calculated repayment amount often doesn’t account for case-specific details impacting the recovery such as liability issues or policy limits. To address this fact, attorneys can:
- Appeal: Navigate through Medicare’s multi-level internal appeal process, which is lengthy, and interest accrues during the appeal.
- Request Compromise/Waiver: After paying the Final Demand, attorneys can request a compromise or waiver, potentially leading to a refund. Requests can be made under:
- Section 1870(c): Financial hardship waiver.
- Section 1862(b): Best interest of the program waiver.
- Federal Claims Collection Act: General compromise request.
Conclusion
Effective resolution of Medicare conditional payments requires diligence and adherence to proper processes prescribed by Medicare. Attorneys should avoid relying on preliminary figures, ensure timely and accurate reporting, and use appropriate channels for appeals or compromise/waiver requests. Understanding and navigating Medicare’s complex requirements is crucial to safeguarding against personal liability and ensuring successful settlement outcomes.
Working with specialized lien resolution companies can provide essential expertise and prevent costly mistakes when it comes to Medicare conditional payments. If you want to find out more, contact us today to Partner with Synergy for lien resolution.
Written by: By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | Founder & Chairman of Synergy | Founder of Special Needs Law Firm | Author of Amazon Best Sellers – Art of Settlement & Litigation to Life | Host of Trial Lawyer View by Synergy Podcast | Peak Practice by Synergy Curator
When a hard-fought personal injury case is resolved, trial lawyers and their clients often breathe a sigh of relief. The hard work is over or so it seems. But lurking beneath the surface of every settlement is a potential minefield: unresolved healthcare liens. This “post-resolution lien chaos” can negatively impact even the most favorable outcomes, leading to financial, ethical, and professional consequences that causes an impact long after the case is closed.
What Is Post-Resolution Lien Chaos?
Post-resolution lien chaos occurs when liens—Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA, FEHBA, military, hospital, or private health plans—are not properly identified, negotiated, and resolved. At first, it may look like a small administrative issue. In reality, it can mushroom into:
- Delayed client disbursements that frustrate injury victims.
- Unexpected repayment demands from aggressive recovery contractors or government agencies.
- Double damages and lawsuits, especially in cases involving Medicare conditional payments or Part C plan liens.
- Reputational harm to the lawyer, whose client expected finality, not protracted disputes with lien holders.
In other words, unresolved liens don’t just threaten client recoveries—they threaten your practice.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
Healthcare reimbursement systems grow more complex each year. As the RAND Institute found, liens are increasingly common and burdensome, particularly in mass tort litigation and Medicare cases. CMS, Medicaid agencies, ERISA plans, and hospital providers are all more aggressive than ever in enforcing reimbursement rights.
The consequences of ignoring or mishandling liens can be severe:
- Financial Exposure: Improper handling of Medicare conditional payments or Part C plan liens can result in personal liability and double damages.
- Ethical Duties: ABA Model Rule 1.15 makes it clear—lawyers must safeguard third-party claims and cannot simply release disputed funds.
- Client Harm: Every dollar paid unnecessarily to a lien holder reduces your client’s net recovery, undermining the very purpose of the litigation.
The True Cost to Trial Lawyers
Many firms underestimate the drain lien resolution creates. Hours spent negotiating with recovery vendors, auditing medical charges, or disputing Medicare demands often eat into a firm’s bottom line. Worse, if something is missed, post-resolution disputes can pull the lawyer back into a case they thought was finished—sometimes years later.
The reality? A mistake made with liens does not just cost a client money; it costs law firms efficiency, profitability, and peace of mind.
Preventing Post-Resolution Chaos
Avoiding lien chaos is about expertise and timing. Best practices include:
- Early Identification: Begin lien investigation as soon as the case is opened, not after settlement discussions start.
- Accurate Validation: Confirm the legal validity of every asserted lien; not every claim is enforceable.
- Strategic Negotiation: Leverage knowledge of ERISA, Medicaid, Medicare, and state-specific lien law to minimize repayment demands.
- Consider Outsourcing: For many firms, partnering with a lien resolution expert eliminates liability, reduces internal costs, and ensures clients receive the maximum net recovery.
Final Thought
Resolution should bring closure, not new battles. Law firms who treat lien resolution as an afterthought risk exposing both themselves and their clients to costly, time-consuming chaos. On the other hand, those who prioritize lien resolution as a core part of case strategy safeguard client recoveries, uphold their ethical obligations, and protect their own practice from unnecessary risk.
At Synergy, we help trial lawyers resolve liens the right way. So when the case ends, it truly is completely over.
Written by: By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | Founder & Chairman of Synergy | Founder of Special Needs Law Firm | Author of Amazon Best Sellers – Art of Settlement & Litigation to Life | Host of Trial Lawyer View by Synergy Podcast | Peak Practice by Synergy Curator
When personal injury lawyers hear ERISA, they may think of “troubling” case law like McCutchen. But what is most important when it comes to resolution of an ERISA lien? ERISA plan language! And depending on the plan language, McCutchen may actually be “troubling” to the ERISA plan. And help the injured client! That is the secret battlefield in lien resolution and ignoring it can cost your client dollars in net recovery and your own practice both time as well as money.
At Synergy, we’ve resolved thousands of ERISA liens and we have learned that winning or losing often comes down to one thing: what’s in the plan contract.
What Is ERISA and Why Should You Care?
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs most employer-sponsored health plans. These plans often contain subrogation and reimbursement provisions that trigger when a participant receives a personal injury settlement.
Unlike government programs like Medicare or Medicaid, ERISA plans are contractual beasts. Their rights live and die by the language of the plan document. And thanks to Supreme Court decisions like Sereboff and McCutchen, we know this: the plan language rules all.
That means if the Plan disavows equitable defenses like the “made whole” doctrine or “common fund”, and most savvy plans now do, it doesn’t matter how unfair the reimbursement seems. If it’s in writing and properly drafted, it’s enforceable as written. This doesn’t mean they can’t reduce, it just means they don’t have to reduce.
The Crucial Questions You Must Ask
Before you even start negotiating, get answers to these:
- Is it a self-funded or fully insured ERISA plan? (Preemption only applies to self funded plans.)
- Do you have the Master Plan Document (MPD) or just a Summary Plan Description (SPD)? (Hint: You need the MPD per the Cigna v Amara case.)
- What does the Plan say about reimbursement rights, scope, and exclusions?
- Does the Plan incorporate or waive any equitable doctrines?
The Power (and Peril) of Plan Language
Too often, law firms take what the recovery vendor tells them at face value. But the vendor isn’t the plan and the documents they have are probably most favorable to them collecting in full. And they’re banking on you not asking for the full plan language. That’s where Synergy comes in.
Our lien experts routinely uncover language that reduces or eliminates repayment obligations. In one recent case, we got a complete waiver based solely on flawed plan language saving the client a substantial portion of their net recovery.
Why Trial Lawyers Shouldn’t Go It Alone
Dealing with ERISA liens means you’re not just negotiating; you’re interpreting contracts that have federal supremacy, involve preemption, and are backed by aggressive recovery contractors. This isn’t a fair fight unless you bring your own heavy artillery.
At Synergy, we know where the pressure points are. We know which plans are bluffing (not providing proper documentation) and which have the leverage. And we don’t resolve an ERISA lien without reviewing the plan documents given their importance.
Final Word: It’s Not Just Legal—It’s Strategic
Understanding ERISA plan language isn’t just about compliance; it’s about advocacy. When you master the document, you control the negotiations. When you outsource to experts who completely understand this space, you protect your client and your firm.
Ready to fight smarter? Contact Synergy to learn how our ERISA lien resolution team can help you preserve your client’s recovery—and your sanity.
Written by: Teresa Kenyon, Esq. | Vice President of Lien Resolution Services
Navigating the intricacies of subrogation and reimbursement for ERISA-governed health plans demands a comprehensive understanding of statutory frameworks, plan documentation, and pertinent case law. Attorneys representing clients facing such liens must employ meticulous strategies to effectively negotiate reductions. Reducing these claims can be complex but is often achievable with the right strategies.. Here are some approaches commonly used to assess the strength of an ERISA plan in their right to demand reimbursement.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs employer-sponsored health plans, including self-funded plans where employers assume direct financial responsibility for employee healthcare claims. A critical aspect of these plans involves subrogation and reimbursement rights, which allow plans to recoup medical expenses paid on behalf of participants who later recover funds from third parties responsible for their injuries. The fact that a plan is self-funded under ERISA does not automatically grant it full recovery from an injured party’s settlement funds.
In all cases, a full assessment is required before fully engaging in any negotiations with an ERISA self-funded plan. Once appropriate steps have been taken, you can enter the battlefield.
ERISA Preemption and Self-Funded Plans
ERISA includes a preemption clause that supersedes state laws relating to employee benefit plans. However, the “savings clause” exempts state laws regulating insurance from this preemption, and the “deemer clause” specifies that self-funded plans are not considered insurance companies, thereby shielding them from state insurance regulations. This framework grants self-funded ERISA plans broad authority to enforce subrogation and reimbursement provisions, often overriding state laws designed to limit such recoveries.
With that said, self-funded means something more. But they have to earn it!
Steps for the Battlefield
1. Early Identification and Assessment of Potential Liens
- Initial Client Consultation: During the initial client meeting, inquire about any health insurance coverage that may have paid for medical expenses related to the injury. Understanding the source of these payments is crucial for anticipating potential liens.
- Documentation Request: Promptly request relevant plan documents, including the Master Plan Document (MPD) and the Summary Plan Description (SPD), from the plan administrator. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4), plan administrators are obligated to provide these documents upon written request. Failure to comply can result in penalties, which may be leveraged in negotiations. So the earlier you request, the better!
2. Conduct a Thorough Review of Plan Documentation
- Obtain Essential Documents: Request the Master Plan Document (MPD) and the Summary Plan Description (SPD) as obtained from the plan administrator to assess the lien’s compliance with the plan’s terms.
- Scrutinize Subrogation and Reimbursement Clauses: Identify explicit provisions that grant the plan rights to reimbursement. The specificity and clarity of these provisions can significantly impact the plan’s ability to enforce a lien. Absence of such language weakens the plan’s enforcement capabilities.
- Assess Applicability of Equitable Doctrines: Determine whether the plan explicitly disclaims equitable doctrines such as the “Made Whole” and “Common Fund” doctrines. In US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, the Supreme Court held that while plan terms generally govern, equitable principles may apply in the absence of clear plan language to the contrary. If the language does not appropriately address, the plan would lack entitlement to reimbursement if the claimant hasn’t been fully compensated for their damages or had to pay attorney fees.
- Challenge Ambiguities: Identify vagueness or silence in the plan’s reimbursement provisions, particularly regarding equitable doctrines, argue that they apply.
3. Evaluate the Validity of the Lien and Applicable Law
- ERISA Applicability: Confirm if the Plan is truly governed by ERISA. Church or government plans may not qualify under ERISA and might have weaker lien rights.
- Funding Type Identification:Ascertain whether the Plan is Self-Funded or Insured. Self-funded plans, in which the employer assumes financial risk, are governed by federal law under ERISA, which preempts state laws and grants them broad but distinct reimbursement rights. In contrast, fully insured plans are subject to state insurance regulations that have the tendency to restrict their reimbursement rights.
4. Leverage Hardship in Negotiations
- Use Equitable Arguments: Highlight financial hardship, particularly if the injured party’s recovery was limited or if future medical care costs are substantial.
- Limited Recovery: Use a settlement’s insufficiency to cover all damages (e.g., policy limits or comparative fault) as leverage to reduce the lien.
5. Invoke the Common Fund Doctrine
- Demand Contribution for Attorney Fees Reduction: Argue that the plan must contribute to attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in securing the settlement, thereby reducing the net lien amount. The Plan would not be collecting a reimbursement if it were not for the efforts of the attorney.
- The Court in McCutchen reinforces this idea: “The rationale for the common-fund rule reinforces that conclusion. Third-party recoveries do not often come free: To get one, an insured must incur lawyer’s fees and expenses. Without cost sharing, the insurer free rides on its beneficiary’s efforts—taking the fruits while contributing nothing to the labor.”
6. Analyze the Nature of the Recovery
- Differentiate Compensation Types: Emphasize that portions of the settlement (e.g., pain and suffering, lost wages) are not subject to reimbursement. A thorough review of the plan language may reveal an assist for this argument.
- Comparative Fault: Highlight the claimant’s percentage of fault. For instance, if a claimant is deemed 30% at fault, resulting in a 30% reduction in their actual settlement, it is reasonable to request a corresponding 30% reduction in the ERISA lien.
7. Seek Professional Assistance
- Work with a Lien ResolutionExpert: Partner with lien resolution companies or professionals who specialize in negotiating ERISA liens. They may have established relationships with plan administrators, claims administrator, insurance companies etc and deep experience with navigating these claims.
8. Build Rapport with the Plan Administrator
- Open Communication: Maintain a cooperative tone and provide documentation (e.g., settlement breakdown, hardship affidavits) to support your case for a reduction.
- Ask for Discretion: Many plan administrators have discretionary authority to compromise claims, especially in hardship cases or when full reimbursement would seem inequitable. The plan language may clearly indicate that it is the plan administrator and not the claims administrator that has ultimate decision-making power.
9. Time the Negotiations Carefully
- Although it may be enticing to secure the lien reduction prior to settling the case, you will not get the deepest reduction from a lien holder prior to the case settling.
- Finalize settlement negotiations with the third party before addressing the lien, as lienholders may initially demand a higher amount if they believe more money is available.
Utilizing Case Law – Key Supreme Court Decision
US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88 (2013): Why the Plan Documents Matter
In US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, the Supreme Court underscored the paramount importance of the explicit language within ERISA plan documents. ERISA self-funded plans benefit when their language comprehensively addresses reimbursement, whereas injured parties benefit when plan language is vague or incomplete. The Court held that plan terms must govern, but where they are silent or ambiguous, principles like the “common fund” rule can fill the gaps.
The case involved James McCutchen, a US Airways employee who sustained severe injuries in a car accident. The company’s health plan covered $66,866 of his medical expenses. Subsequently, McCutchen secured a $110,000 settlement from third parties, from which $44,000 was allocated to attorney’s fees. US Airways sought full reimbursement of the medical expenses it had paid, as stipulated in the plan’s terms. McCutchen contended that such full reimbursement, without accounting for attorney’s fees and other costs, would result in unjust enrichment to the plan.
The Supreme Court held that the clear terms of an ERISA plan must be enforced as written, even if they lead to outcomes that might seem inequitable. However, the Court also noted that when a plan’s terms are silent or ambiguous regarding the allocation of costs such as attorney’s fees, equitable doctrines like the “common fund” rule should be applied. This rule ensures that parties benefiting from a recovery contribute proportionally to the associated legal expenses. On remand, the Third Circuit applied this principle, reducing US Airways’ reimbursement to reflect its share of the attorney’s fees incurred during the recovery process.
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. 136 (2016): Active Participation and Traceability of Dissipated Settlement Funds
The Montanile decision further delineated the boundaries of an ERISA plan’s reimbursement rights, particularly concerning the traceability of settlement funds. Plans can only enforce reimbursement claims on settlement funds that remain intact and identifiable. The Court ruled that if a participant dissipates settlement funds on non-traceable items, the plan cannot enforce reimbursement from the participant’s general assets. This case highlights the necessity for plans to act promptly in asserting their reimbursement rights before the settlement funds are spent.
Implications for Legal Practitioners
These landmark cases highlight critical considerations for attorneys handling ERISA-related subrogation and reimbursement issues:
- Strict Adherence to Plan Language: The McCutchen ruling reinforces that the explicit terms of the plan govern reimbursement rights. Attorneys must meticulously review plan documents to understand the scope of the plan’s claims and identify any ambiguities that could be leveraged in negotiations.
- Timeliness in Asserting Claims: As established in Montanile, delays in pursuing reimbursement can result in the dissipation of funds, thereby limiting the plan’s ability to recover. Legal counsel should advise clients on the importance of prompt action to preserve their rights.
- Application of Equitable Doctrines: When plan terms are ambiguous or silent on certain issues, equitable principles such as the “common fund” doctrine may be invoked to ensure a fair allocation of costs. This approach can be instrumental in negotiating reductions in the plan’s reimbursement claims.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of ERISA self-funded plan subrogation and reimbursement requires a strategic and informed approach. By meticulously reviewing plan documents, understanding the nuances of ERISA applicability, and employing equitable arguments, you can effectively approach the battlefield to negotiate lien reductions. Engaging with plan administrators transparently and considering professional assistance further enhances your position. Understanding and interpreting case law, such as US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen and Montanile v. Board of Trustees, is crucial, as these decisions significantly influence reimbursement rights and strategies. Through diligent application of these methods, you can ensure your due diligence on obtaining the most appropriate outcome that honors both the interests of the plan and the rights of your injured client.
Written by: Teresa Kenyon, Esq. | Vice President of Lien Resolution Services
Let’s talk about something that keeps personal injury attorneys up at night: cash flow. Personal injury firms work hard to win recoveries for clients, but then it’s like a slow drip waiting for those funds to be ready to be disbursed. One of the biggest culprits? Healthcare lien resolution.
These things are a handful. Medicare, Medicare advantage, Medicaid, ERISA plans, hospitals, and private insurance plans – they all want a piece of the pie. And while resolving these liens is crucial to maximize your client’s recovery, it’s also a massive drain of time for your team. Time that could be spent on, you know, actually practicing law. And most importantly, using your team’s time to resolve more cases for greater value – delivering great client results along with improved efficiency as well as profitability.
Think about it:
- Hours wasted: Your paralegals and lawyers are drowning in to-dos, paperwork, chasing down medical records, and haggling with lienholders.
- Delayed disbursements: While you’re wrestling with liens, your clients are waiting (impatiently) for their money, and your firm’s recognition of revenue is delayed.
- Missed opportunities: That time spent on lien resolution? It’s time you could be spending on increasing the value of existing cases, bringing in new clients and building your business.
The solution? Outsource it.
Look, I get it. We attorneys like to control every aspect of a case. But outsourcing healthcare lien resolution is a game-changer for personal injury law firms. Here’s why:
- Expertise: Specialized lien resolution firms like Synergy have dedicated teams with deep knowledge of subrogation laws and negotiation tactics. It is all about knowing the inside baseball. They’ll usually get you better results than you could on your own.
- Efficiency: Companies, like Synergy, have streamlined systems to handle the entire process painlessly and efficiently, freeing up your staff.
- Faster resolution: This means quicker disbursements to your clients, which keeps them happy and boosts your firm’s cash flow velocity.
Bottom line: Outsourcing healthcare liens is a win-win. You get faster resolution, improved efficiency, and happier clients. And let’s face it, wouldn’t you rather be focusing on winning cases than battling with healthcare insurance companies and their subrogation recovery agents over liens?
Written by: Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | CEO
Introduction
Effective lien resolution is pivotal in personal injury cases. Liens—claims from healthcare providers, insurers, or government agencies against a plaintiff’s settlement—can significantly impact the net recovery. Understanding and managing these liens is crucial for maximizing the client’s recovery and ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
What is a Lien?
In personal injury cases, a lien represents a claim by an entity seeking reimbursement for medical expenses or benefits provided to the injured party. These claims must be addressed to avoid compromising the client’s net settlement.
Overview of Various Lien Types
Medicare Liens Conditional Payments: Medicare’s conditional payments for medical expenses necessitate reimbursement from settlement proceeds under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The resolution process is managed by the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC), which involves reporting the settlement to the MSPRC and resolving the reimbursement obligation with them through their normal process.
Medicare Advantage (Part C) Liens: Medicare Advantage plans, administered by private insurers, can assert liens for covered medical expenses. To resolve, you negotiate directly with the private insurer or their recovery contractor. The process is governed by the same laws as traditional Medicare but involves private insurance entities.
Medicaid Liens: Medicaid liens are asserted by state programs for medical expenses paid on the plaintiff’s behalf, with each state having distinct laws. To resolve, you contact the state Medicaid agency to determine the lien amount, negotiate reductions, and comply with state-specific procedures.
ERISA Liens: ERISA liens arise from employer-sponsored plans, often with strong subrogation rights if self-funded. In resolving these liens, first understand the ERISA plan terms, then engage with the plan administrator, and negotiate reductions under federal law (if self-funded), which can be complex. If the plan isn’t self-funded, then state law will apply.
FEHBA/Military Liens: FEHBA and military plans like TRICARE may assert liens for medical expenses. To resolve, contact the relevant federal agency or military plan administrator to understand lien rights and negotiate reductions where feasible.
Private Health Insurance Liens: Private insurers may assert subrogation claims based on their policy’s provisions. To resolve, first review the insurance policy, then negotiate directly with the insurer, and argue for reductions based on equitable principles or other legal related arguments for reduction based upon state law.
Hospital and Provider Liens: Hospitals and providers may assert direct liens for unpaid medical bills. To resolve, negotiate with providers, leveraging financial hardship or equitable distribution arguments, and the reasonable cost of care.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of various liens requires a thorough understanding of their unique characteristics and resolution processes. From Medicare to ERISA and military liens, each type demands specific strategies for effective resolution. Understanding these nuances ensures that personal injury lawyers can protect their clients’ interests and secure the highest possible net recovery.
If you want to do further reading on the subject, our white paper is a detailed guide to the different lien types and all of their nuances. You can download “Advanced Lien Resolution Techniques – Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, ERISA, FEHBA, Military Liens and Hospital Liens” by clicking HERE. If however you are ready to partner with Synergy and outsource lien resolution today, contact us NOW.
Written by: Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC | CEO
BLOGS
READY TO SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION?
The Synergy team will work diligently to ensure your case gets the attention it deserves. Contact one of our legal experts and get a professional review of your case today.
