UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION
DAWN SHEPHERD and
BRIAN GARVER, Individually and as
Natural Parents and Guardians of Minor,
EG,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No, 2:15 CV 167

LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA NECA

IBEW HEALTH and BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendant,

SRG OG a OR RR doi i iad i ici dak

LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA NECA

IBEW HEALTH and BENEFIT PLAN,
Counter-Plaintiff,

vy.

DAWN SHEPHERD and

BRIAN GARVER, Individually and as
Natural Parents and Guardians of Minor,
EG,

SS SS Se SS Seer

Counter-Defendants,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

1, Parties. The parties conferred via electronic mail and agreed to this report on
January 26, 2016, Mark Thiros participated for the Plaintiff(s), and Harold Hagberg patticipated
for the Defendant.

2. Background, Plaintiff, E.G., was involved in an automobile accident on October
23, 2011. He alleges that the accident was the result of the negligence of minor, A.C, Plaintiffs
allege that the claim against A.C. was settled for $250,000,

Defendant in this cause, Lake County Indiana NECA IBEW Health and Benefit Plan
(hereinafter “the Plan”), is a multi-employer health and benefit fund established under the

precept of ERISA. The Plan contains language rejecting the common fund doctrine and the make



whole doctrine.

This matter was originally filed in the Porter Superior Court, under Cause No. 64D01-
1204-CT-4240, The Defendant removed this matter to Federal Court as the issue involves a
matter of federal jurisdiction,

Kelly Garver, who is the step-mother to E.G., is a member of the Plan, As a result of the
accident described herein, the Plan paid medical bills on behalf of E.G. in the amount of
approximately $391,000. The Plan is claiming a lien under ERISA for that amount.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that they received benefits from the Plan, However Plaintiffs
dispute that the Plan paid $391,000 in benefits and the actual amount needs to be determined.
Plaintiffs further contend that they are not bound by the contractual language of the Plan because
E.G. was never an “eligible dependent” under the Plan’s definition of same, Plaintiffs claim that
reimbursement to the Plan should be governed by rules of equity and that Defendant must reduce
its subrogation lien in proportion to the Plaintiffs’ total recovery. Plaintiffs also claim that the
Defendant must pay a reasonable attorney’s fee from the amount of the lien as well as pro-rata
expenses.

‘The Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming that E.G. was not an
“eligible dependent” after receiving Plan benefits. Defendant has filed a Counter-Claim
demanding recovery of its subrogation interest in full.

3. Current Status. At this time, the parties are in the discovery process, Plaintiffs
submitted Requests for Production to Defendant on December 21, 2015. Defendant is in the
process of finalizing its responses to said requests. Mediation and Discovery Deadline is set for

March 4, 2016, which the parties request to be extended to June 30, 2016. No other deadlines

have been set at this time,



Date: f ~Ag “1016
ao

~ a
Gounsel for Plaintiff(s)
Mark A. Thiros
200 E. 90th Drive
Merrillville, IN 46410

TALE

Counsel for Defeniyt A
Harold’ G:Hagbefg~” ¢-“
11045 Broadway, Suite D
Crown Point, IN 46307