Further, you are covered by the law in effect at the time of your disability & the Health Funds susbsequent (post-facto) changes demanding that you pay up, 'X' no. of dollars per month to maintain what is already owed to you under the terms of the plan in existance at the time of your disability appear to be illegal as the Health Fund now seeks reimbursement of certain of your assets (your cash) payable to them on a monthly basis in perpetuity.
Costs to treat your conditions, your sons or anyone else in your family under a family plan; particularly medicines required for any treatment all fall under the non-traceable assets protection.
Sounds odd but a traceable asset the funds could go after would be a car, a home a piece of land. The Funds cannot sue you or force you to pay twice for what they already owed to you & yours under the original plan requirements when you were hurt/disabled. Appears that they're double dipping & now trying to profit from your situation.
Full case above. You and other retirees must use every available legal doctrine and precedent to your advantage. While not all of this case is directly applicable to you, there are certain aspects within this case which provide legal theories which can be used in a direct cause of action when filing suit against the fund.
The Funds greed in a post facto change to rules after the date of your disability in my view appears to be their attempt to utilize the 'subrogation' theory to go after your future assets (cash) you & your family use to pay for the non-traceable asset(s) which are used for life saving medications for your son or for your continued treatment for your personal disablity. If you did not sue the funds at the time of your disability claim - then the Funds have no future claim to which the subrogation claim can apply - whether at law or in equity. The Funds are trying to have it both ways and as such, their false claim to your future earnings or cash if you prefer wuold amount to an illegal seizure of your assets to which the Funds are not entitled.
Pending the date of your disability, you may still be entitled to sue the funds & you should consult an attorney whose practice is devoted to these type cases noting the statute of limitation to file suit. Since it is an ongoing issue, the statute clock may not yet have run; re: tolling.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT
PLANCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–723. Argued November 9, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016
Employee benefits plans regulated by the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act) often contain subrogation clausesrequiring a plan participant to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if the participant later recovers money from a third party for his injuries. Here, petitioner Montanile was seriously injured by a drunk driver, and his ERISA plan paid more than $120,000 for hismedical expenses. Montanile later sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement. Pursuant to the plan’s subrogation clause, respondent plan administrator (the Board of Trustees of the NationalElevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, or Board), sought reimbursement from the settlement. Montanile’s attorney refused thatrequest and subsequently informed the Board that the fund would be transferred from a client trust account to Montanile unless the Board objected. The Board did not respond, and Montanile received the settlement. Six months later, the Board sued Montanile in Federal District Court under §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which authorizes plan fiduciaries tofile suit “to obtain . . . appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . .the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. §1132(a)(3). The Board sought anequitable lien on any settlement funds or property in Montanile’s possession and an order enjoining Montanile from dissipating any such funds. Montanile argued that because he had already spent almost all of the settlement, no identifiable fund existed against which to enforce the lien. The District Court rejected Montanile’s argument, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that even if Montanile had completely dissipated the fund, the plan was entitled to re2
MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
imbursement from Montanile’s general assets.
When an ERISA-plan participant wholly dissipates a third-party settlement on nontraceable items, the plan fiduciary may not bring suit under §502(a)(3) to attach the participant’s separate assets.Pp. 5–15.
ﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭtain . . . equitable relief.” Whether the relief requested “is legal orequitable depends on  the basis for [the plaintiff’s] claim and the nature of the underlying remedies sought.” Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356, 363. Pp. 5–9.
This Court’s precedents establish that the basis for the Board’s claim—the enforcement of a lien created by an agreement to convey a particular fund to another party—is equitable. See Sereboff, 547 U. S., at 363–364. The Court’s precedents also establish that thenature of the Board’s underlying remedy—enforcement of a lienagainst “specifically identifiable funds that were within [Montanile’s]possession and control,” id.,ﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭtable had the Board immediately sued to enforce the lien against thefund. But those propositions do not resolve the question here: ﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭant has dissipated all of a separate settlement fund, and the planthen seeks to recover out of the defendant’s general assets. Pp. 5–7.
ﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭ ﾭﾭﾭtiff could ordinarily enforce an equitable lien, including, as here, anequitable lien by agreement, only against specifically identified fundsthat remained in the defendant’s possession or against traceable items that the defendant purchased with the funds. See 4 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence §1234, pp. 692–695. If a defendant ﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭsets instead. See Restatement of Restitution, §215(1), p. 866. Pp. 8–
(b) ﾭﾭﾭﾭtable lien against Montanile’s general assets are unsuccessful. Sereboffﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭquirement for equitable liens by agreement. See 547 U. S., at 365. ﾭﾭﾭﾭuitable lien against general assets. And the Board’s claim that ERISA’s objectives are best served by allowing plans to enforce suchﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭﾭquate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issueunder consideration.” Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508
U. S. 248,
261. Pp. 9–14.
Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 3
(c) The case is remanded for the District Court to determine, in the first instance, whether Montanile kept his settlement fund separatefrom his general assets and whether he dissipated the entire fund onnontraceable assets. P. 14.
593 Fed. Appx. 903, reversed and remanded.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined except for Part III–C.
GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
First - follow the advice of Rich Dorrough above; then file for equitable relief under ERISA. Your ongoing treatment for any disability related issues and your sons medical requirements all fall under non-traceable assets.