Opinion ID: 29579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Goetzmann and Loftin's Reimbursement Liability Under the MSP Statute.

Text: 54
55 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. 56 A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. 57 A fact issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action. 58 In deciding whether a fact issue has been created, we view the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 59 56 The standard for summary judgment mirrors that for judgment as a matter of law. 60 Thus, we must review all of the evidence in the record, but make no credibility determinations or weigh any evidence. 61 In reviewing all the evidence, we must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe, and should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmoving party as well as the evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached. 62 The nonmoving party, however, cannot satisfy his summary judgment burden with conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence. 63 57 2. Goetzmann and Loftin are not Required to Reimburse the Government Because They did Not Receive Payment from an Insurer. 58 The government asserts a right of recovery against Goetzmann and Loftin based on their receipt of monies from Zimmer pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Under the MPSA, the United States is limited to pursuing an independent right of recovery against two types of entities: a `primary plan;' or an entity that has received payment from a primary plan. 64 As neither Goetzmann nor Loftin can be found to have received monies from an entity — Zimmer — that distributed funds under a primary plan, neither Goetzmann nor Loftin can be required to reimburse the government under the MSP statute.