UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: JANICE HALGREN,

___________________________________

Janice Halgren,

Case No. 09-11563

Appellant,

v. (Lien Appeal)

Medical Management Group, Inc., Honorable Denise Page Hood

Appellee.

____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING LIEN APPEAL

I. BACKGROUND

This matter is before the Court on a Notice of Appeal from the Lien Judge’s decision

issued before the Settlement Facility-Dow Corning Trust (“SF-DCT”). Appellant Janice Halgren

asserts that the Lien Judge’s decision awarding Appellee Medical Management Group, Inc.’s

lien request in the amount of $2,500 for an ultrasound it performed on Halgren should be

overturned. Halgren asserts that the Proof of Lien form filed by Medical Management was not

timely filed before the SF-DCT and that Medical Management was not truthful when she was

told that the ultrasound would not be covered by her insurance. No response was filed by

Medical Management to Halgren’s appeal.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the post-confirmation lien appeal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) because the Lien Judge’s decision could conceivably have an effect on

the estate being administered in bankruptcy. See In re Wolverine Radio Co., 930 F.2d 1132,

J:09-cv-11563-DPH Doc # 10 Filed 09/28/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 43
2

1141 (6th Cir. 1991); Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 773 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court retains

jurisdiction to interpret and enforce confirmed plans of reorganization. See In re Thickstun Bros.

Equip. Co., Inc., 344 B.R. 515, 522 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2006); In re Beta Int’l, Inc., 210 B.R. 279,

284 (E.D. Mich. 1996). The Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (“Plan”) provides that the

Court has the authority to resolve controversies and disputes regarding the interpretation of the

Plan and Plan Documents, which includes the Settlement Facility and Fund Distribution

Agreement (“SFA”) See Amended Joint Plan, § 8.7.3; SFA, §§ 4.01 and 10.09. The Court

reviews de novo the Lien Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

The June 30, 2005 Amended Stipulation and Order Establishing Procedures for the

Review of Asserted Liens Against Settling Implant Claimants (“Lien Review Procedures”)

provide that a “party may appeal the decision of the Lien Judge by filing a Notice of Appeal with

the District Court within 14 days of the date of the notice from the SF-DCT providing the

decision of the Lien Judge.” (Lien Review Procedures, § 7.01) The Lien Review Procedures

apply to disputes between claimants who have been determined to be eligible and have been paid

by the SF-DCT and persons or entities who assert the right to receive a portion of the payments

to the claimants from the SF-DCT. (Lien Review Procedures, § 1.01) Section 6.05 of the Lien

Review Procedures provides that all expenses incurred sought to be recovered must be

reasonable in relation to the work performed and the result obtained. (Lien Review Procedures,

§ 6.05) 

As to the late submission issue, the Lien Judge found that “Section 10.02 of the

‘Procedures’ states that ‘to comply with the deadline, a submission must be postmarked by the

date of the deadline.’” (Lien Judge Decision, Ex. to Appeal) Although the postmark was not

available, the Lien Judge found that the Proof of Lien form was timely filed because the form

J:09-cv-11563-DPH Doc # 10 Filed 09/28/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 44
3

was dated April 2, 2008, the form could have been mailed either on April 2 or 3, 2008, which

would have been within the deadline and is compatible with the date of receipt by SF-DCT. (Id.)

The Lien Judge also found that the Proof of Lien form did not contain any information which

was not already on file with the SF-DCT. (Id.) The Court agrees with the Lien Judge’s findings

that the Proof of Lien form was timely filed under the Procedures.

The Court also agrees with the Lien Judge’s finding that based on the documents before

him, the lien asserted by Medical Management for the ultrasound is valid in the amount of

$2,500.00. It is noted that the Lien Judge did not award Medical Management’s request for an

additional $125.00 in “fees/expenses” since that amount was not properly documented.

Reviewing the Lien Judge’s decision and the documents submitted by Halgren, the Court

finds that the Lien Judge did not err in his conclusion that Medical Management is entitled to the

lien asserted in the amount of $2,500.00. Halgren’s request to overturn the Lien Judge’s

decision is denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant Janice Halgren’s Appeal (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.

 /s/ Denise Page Hood 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

United States District Judge

DATED: September 28, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE/MAILING

I certify that a copy of this document was served on this date electronically or by ordinary mail

to all parties in interest.

Date: September 28, 2012 s/ Sarah Schoenherr 

Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5090

J:09-cv-11563-DPH Doc # 10 Filed 09/28/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 45