Opinion ID: 2648174
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Secretary can recover from an

Text: attorney who has already disbursed settlement proceeds does not bear on the merits of the injunction. Balentine maintains that the secondary payer provisions do not create a lien against the settlement proceeds. Therefore, he argues, the Secretary may not recover from an attorney who has already disbursed settlement proceeds. The district court agreed and ruled that the Secretary does not have a right of action against attorneys who have already disbursed settlement proceeds. But that issue is not presented on the facts of this case. The Secretary was fully reimbursed and Balentine was not sued after disbursing Haro’s settlement proceeds. The complaint alleges only that the Secretary’s demand that attorneys withhold funds from their clients exceeds her authority under the secondary payer provisions. The Secretary’s authority to bring an action against an attorney who has disbursed the proceeds is not a controversy ripe for our review. We conclude the Secretary’s interpretation of the reimbursement provision is rational and consistent with the statute’s text, history, and purpose, therefore it is reasonable and the district court’s second injunction and its order on summary judgment must be reversed. HARO V. SEBELIUS 35