Lawyers seek $12.4M in adultBasic case
The six lawyers who successfully fought to restore funding to the state's adultBasic health insurance program are asking a judge to award them about $12.4 million in attorney fees from money that would otherwise go into the program, according to court documents.
The number, contained in a motion filed Friday in state Commonwealth Court, is 10 percent of the estimated $123.8 million in tobacco settlement money the state will split between the insurance fund and a Medicaid fund for disabled workers next year.
The amount is reasonable, the attorneys argue in the motion, because their contract with the lower-income adults formerly covered by the insurance program allows them to claim up to one-third of any money recovered.
If the $123.8 million were evenly split between the two accounts, each would get about $61.9 million, and one-third of the adultBasic funding would come to about $20.6 million, the motion says.
Gov. Tom Corbett shut down adultBasic and diverted the tobacco settlement money shortly after taking office in 2011. Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled on March 4 that the state must annually split 30 percent of the settlement money between the two programs.
AdultBasic began in 2002 for lower-income working adults who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid or were not old enough for Medicare. It covered major surgery but not dental costs or prescriptions.
The tobacco settlement with five major tobacco companies allows the state to recoup expenses for Medicaid costs from tobacco-related illnesses.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.