Home | Workers Comp Blogwire | Supreme Court Declines to Review a RICO Case

Supreme Court Declines to Review a RICO Case

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

On the eve of the new US Supreme Court Term, the Court declined to review a claim involving a RICO allegation. Schoedinger v. United Healthcare of Midwest, Inc., 557 F.3d 872, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 11,648, 46 Employee Benefits Cas. 1283 (8th Cir.(Mo.), Mar 05, 2009) (NO. 07-3317) was denied certification.

In Schoedinger a Petition for Certiorari had been filed to the US Supreme Court in a RICO claim involving a medical provider who claims an insurance company committed fraud in processing the provider's bills for services. George Schroedinger, MD had filed a Petition to seek review of a Eight Circuit decision that over turned a favorable RICO action against United Healthcare of the Midwest, Inc.

Whether this is predictive of the outcome of the pending workers' Compensation RICO matter remains unknown. A Petition for Certiorari was also filed in Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. Oct 23, 2008) (NO. 05-2089), following the rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (Jan 05, 2009). Brown is a landmark decision of immense national significance, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a RICO claim brought by injured workers against their employer, insurance carrier and employer medical expert could proceed. The Brown case was scheduled for a Supreme Court conference on September 29, 2009.

See the Workers' Compensation Blog for additional articles on this topic.
Add to: LinkedIn LinkedIn

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Comments must comply with the WorkersCompensation.com Terms of Service


Once you've submitted a comment, it has been saved, and will be visible after moderator's approval.
  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Award
Rate this article
0
Poll:
Some WC insurers are exiting some states due to falling premiums and rising medical costs. Does this signal a structural shift in the WC insurance industry?