ESS Settlement Services

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Founders
    • Staff and Affiliates
  • Our Services
    • Structured Settlement Design & Planning
      • In Depth Look At Structures/FAQ
      • Complete Document Preparation & Review
      • Mediation Attendance
    • Life Care Plan & Financial & Economic Needs Analysis
      • Pre and Post Verdict 50(a) & 50(b) Periodic Judgment Analysis
    • Attorney Fee Deferment
    • Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) Analysis & Future Allocation Apportionment
    • Lien Resolution Services
    • Benefits Coordination & Planning Team
      • Medicare, Medicaid & Healthcare Compliance
    • Trust Advisement & Services
    • QSF Services
  • Our Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact Us
    • Request a Proposal

The Wrong Way to Treat Victims of Wrongful Birth

April 6, 2015 by Randy Levine Leave a Comment

shutterstock_258156005Ever since the advent of genetic counseling almost half a century ago, the American legal system has struggled to develop a reasoned approach for handling tort claims based on the notion of a wrongful birth – that is a claim for damages based on the birth of child with serious genetic defects. In a sense, it’s a tort action similar to any other negligence or professional malpractice claim, which arises if a professional counselor and/or physician, in providing pre-natal screening, fails to meet the appropriate standard of care by not warning parents about a foreseeable or detectable genetic defect. But even though such a claim is based on traditional concepts of negligence, courts have been troubled by the ethical dimensions of awarding damages as the result of the birth of a child.

In fact, a wrongful birth claim cannot be brought in a number of states because it has been statutorily banned – not surprisingly this tends to be the approach in Red State America, where right-to-life views predominate.

But even in more liberally minded jurisdictions, courts have distinguished and imposed limits on wrongful birth claims in contrast to the legal treatment accorded to other types of medical malpractice actions. The approach of the New York courts is a good example. Five years after Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to choose, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Becker v. Schwartz awarding a woman who gave birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome financial damages because her doctors had failed to advise her that, based on her age, which was above 35, her child was at greater risk. But the court limited its award to financial damages to the mother based on the cost of caring for the child and refused to grant any award of emotional damages, reasoning that the family “may experience a love [for their child] that even an abnormality cannot fully dampen.”

At present, courts in about half the states recognize claims based on wrongful birth at least for financial damages. And not surprisingly, as pre-natal genetic testing becomes a more common practice, claims based on wrongful birth are being brought with increasing frequency.

Our own interest in the issue of wrongful birth litigation stems from our work as structured settlement consultants. In our corner of the legal universe, we see wrongful birth plaintiffs face yet one more hurdle that prevents them from receiving full and fair recovery even with respect to an award of financial damages. That’s because even in states that recognize a cause of action for wrongful birth, there is no clarity as to whether wrongful birth plaintiffs are able to receive their financial damages in the form of a Tax Free Qualified Structured Settlement.

As we’ve discussed on the blog before, a structured settlement is ideally suited to the needs of personal injury victims who face long-term medical care needs, by providing an optimal, tax advantaged vehicle to generate a stable stream of income for life. A child born with a serious birth defect is exactly the sort of person who stands to benefit most from a structured settlement approach.

Yet for some reason, not entirely clear to us, insurance companies are presently unsure whether to establish structured settlements that cover wrongful birth lifetime care needs. We think this is wrong and needs to change. It is based on an overly narrow reading of Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2), which is the statutory provision that provides tax-advantage to structured settlements to those who suffered with a physical injury or illness. There is no legal, policy or ethical reason, why families facing the burden of lifetime care for children born with serious birth defects should not stand to benefit from the advantages of Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2) the same as other damage award recipients. In fact, there have been other IRS revenue rulings that have carved out exceptions permitting future medical expenses to be non-taxable on the reasoning that the plaintiffs cannot deduct those future costs because the monies came from an insurance company (just as individuals cannot deduct those dollars that they receive from health insurance companies pay for medical treatment).

We are involved in case right now where a mother failed to receive advance notice about a Fragile X gene and as a result of that failure must now care for severely disabled twins for the rest of their life. We don’t see why these victims — these parents and children — are not afforded the right to use a Qualified Tax Free Annuity for the future medical care.. Tax-free settlements are far more cost effective because the same amount of dollars paid via a structured settlement can go that much further in providing needed care. Moreover, annuities are an important tool for helping these families cover these ongoing costs. And there’s further financial leverage inasmuch as structured settlements are decided based on rated ages, and life expectancies, which may also work to the advantage of children with serious birth defects.

The issue requires clarity. We at ESS Settlement Services are committed to do whatever we can. To start with, we will contact each Life company on behalf of these victims and fight for their rights because we believe it’s time that wrongful birth claimants are entitled to the same benefits under the law as other damage award recipients.

Filed Under: Life Insurance, structured settlements, Tax Law Tagged With: Special Needs Trust, structured settlements, tax free, Wrongful Death

Know Your Facts Before Purchasing Your Structured Settlement in the Secondary Market

February 2, 2015 by Randy Levine 2 Comments

structured settlements secondary marketIf you’re a member of the TV watching world you’ve probably seen tons of commercials offering to purchase structured settlements for “Cash Now”, especially in the last twelve months.

Designing and setting up a structured settlement provides the settlement recipient with a guaranteed steady income stream for the rest of their life or a specific time period. The money grows in a tax-free annuity, so for example a $400,000 settlement can grow to be worth $1 million, that will pay out in monthly installments over time, in a structured settlement.

JG Wentworth and other purchasers offer to buy these annuity streams for straight up cash now, so that the structured settlement holder does not have to wait for each installment. For example, they might entice the recipient of the $400,000 settlement with an offer of $600,000 although the structured settlement is worth $1 million. This is called “Factoring.” The danger for our clients is: where do these factored/purchased annuities go and can it affect your future clients?

The Factoring companies (Purchasers) “warehouse” these annuity streams and try to sell the recycled payment rights back to new injured parties through originators a.k.a structured settlement firms like ours. The theory is that these secondary market recycled annuities would be more appealing because the internal rates of return (IRR) on purchased/recycled annuities tend to be higher than brand new ones. However, when the stream is transferred there is a high risk that the annuity may lose its tax-free status, as it is no longer is a qualified assignment under IRS section 130.  In addition, the recycled annuity’s protection from the various State’s health and life guaranty association may be lost. There may be legal challenges from the SEC and FINRA to the new ownership too, as securities may not be registered with the SEC. Plus, the purchaser may charge an expensive commission.

Here at ESS, we would be uncomfortable putting our stamp on one of these re-bundled annuities. We find the secondary market these purchasers are creating shady and unreliable, as they often fail to inform people about the tax-status of the stream. We know that 3.5 percent IRR that is tax-free is better than a recycled false 5 percent IRR that is now taxable growth.  Not everyone is properly advised and people often get lost in the false rates of return. While what they are doing is legal, the gray areas concern us and we think that people should know the facts before purchasing a secondary market structured settlement annuity. 

What has your experience been in the secondary market? Share your comments with us and let us know your thoughts.

Filed Under: structured settlements Tagged With: purchasing structured settlements, secondary market, tax free

Recent Posts

  • ABLE Accounts: providing a better life experience for New York’s disabled residents
  • Bringing Your Client to Mediation: the pros and cons considered
  • How To Identify Which Cases Are Ripe For Mediation
  • The CMS Recovery Portal: helping put money in your pocket faster
  • Getting the Most of Out of Your Next Mediation

Search

Tag Cloud

ABLE ACT 2014 Affordable Care Act Amos v Rodman annuity chronic condition confidentiality clause Dennis Rodman Erisa financial planning Health care insurance adjustors IRS law lien resolution Life Care Plan Life Insurance Benefits litigation mediation mediations mediator Medicaid Medical Law Medicare Medicare Liens Medicare Secondary Payer Act Medicare Set Aside medicare set asides MSA MSP notice of hardship conversion Obama Care personal injury law plaintiff plaintiffs private letter ruling settlements Special Needs Trust structured settlements tax free tax free annuity tax free income tax on settlements trial-ready Wrongful Death Wurtz v The Rawlings Company

Our Mission

As a settlement consulting company owned and run by practicing trial attorneys, ESS brings you true plaintiff-based settlement consultants that are dedicated to serving the plaintiff’s bar and remaining on the cutting edge of settlement planning.

Follow Us Online

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Our latest posts

  • ABLE Accounts: providing a better life experience for New York’s disabled residents
  • Bringing Your Client to Mediation: the pros and cons considered
  • How To Identify Which Cases Are Ripe For Mediation
  • The CMS Recovery Portal: helping put money in your pocket faster
  • Getting the Most of Out of Your Next Mediation

Connect With Us

ESS Settlement Services

P: 844-ESS-1212
F: 866-977-1201
E: info@esqsettlements.com
©2015 ESS Settlements Services, LLC - All Rights Reserved

Structured Settlements provided by Sage Settlement Consulting