progression claims

[judyd]

Hi, does anyone know if progression claims in audit show up on pacer just like the original claims?

[soootired]

I don't know. You would think anything filed with the courts would be put on pacer.

[realMArie]

Whether it's a progression claim or an original claim, if the claim passes audit then you'll see nothing on PACER because the trust just pays the claim. They don't need the courts permission to pay a claim that passed audit.

You'll only see something on PACER about a claim if there's a request for show cause - and then you'll see that request filed and eventually, see the results of the show cause proceeding along with an order from the court to either pay the claim or not.

[nick]

along these lines....

when you file your final showcause material, does the special master follow verbatim your showcause arguments?

[realMarie]

Nick, the sole purpose of show cause is to decide whether or not there was a reasonable medical basis for answers given in a green form claiming matrix level disease. That's it - PERIOD. They don't care about anything else, so if your arguments are going to be about anything other than making your case as to why you feel that you should have passed audit and been paid, then you'll be barking up the wrong tree.

[nick]

"the perception" and "the reality" of "truths" in this settlement have often been two different things.

"the realities" is going to cause problems.


your advice is about 33% correct

[judyd]

they seem to like new arguments in show cause, but you cant present anything new that isn't already part of the case file---L

[soootired]

Isn't that the truth!! You can't present anything new to back up your claim yet they want you to show why you should be paid.

I've been in show cause now since December 2005. Almost December 2010 & I'm still waiting. Pretty pathetic for a "justice" system.

[judyd]

not too fair-- you are allowed to present new arguments, but no new proofs

[nick]

not too fair-- you are allowed to present new arguments, but no new proofs

...............and when that proof lives within the emails and pleadings to the court and the special master, and the sealed docs of the trust, and in the data that was used for teachable moments and a revized audit system, and in the corrupt qualifying echo processes used by the lawyers in gaming the system, and in the court to try and perpetuate the myth that this settlement was on the up and up.......


I'm just sorry that the company that made this poison and did this to our health is not the one in the crosshairs. Instead it will be the lawyers who lined up against WYETH. The same lawyers who help protect us against the unbrideled greed of big corporations. You are the ones who are going to get hurt by the CofA investigations.

[realMarie]

Here's something you might find interesting. The court is soliciting opinions from Wyeth and CC on interpretation of the settlement agreement sections VI.C.2.e, VI.C.2.f and VI.C.4.b.

There's been issues raised in show cause regarding these above mentioned sections. The issues are as follows and are directly quoted from the PTO:

1) "Is a claimant required to submit echocardiographic media (a videotape or disk) to establish his or her eligibility to submit a claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits? In other words, is a claimant who submits only an affidavit of a missing echocardiogram to establish FDA positive levels of regurgitation or mild mitral regurgitation eligible to submit a claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits? If not, what documentation, if any, is required by the Settlement Agreement to establish that claimant had the requisite level of regurgitation?"

2) "Is a claimant who is otherwise eligible to submit a claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits entitled to rely on other medical records to establish a reasonable medical basis for his or her claim, including the applicability of pertinent reduction factors, in the absence of echocardiographic media?"

[judyd]

if they approve affidavit only then that claim would have an advantage, because all our claims were submitted with a cardios affidavit of moderate or worse regurgitation, but the auditors/TA disagreed, how would they get around those claims? It would make you want to lose your echo

[nick]

Marie,

Will you please post the complete notice or give a link where we can find the whole item including any backgrounds.

This is very interesting and obviously is being done for a reason

Would be wonderful if Joe Simon would offer a few comments about this

Jennifer if how I am reading this is correct then this would be a huge boost for your claim...i e Karalis study

[nick]

thanks marie for the motion

65k or so claims and NOW this comes up? This is such a basic and common issue and it takes this long before anyone questions the standard "No"

you'd think this would have been settled years before....apparently parties have been troubled by what the court of appeals may have in mind on this issue

And one can't help but think...what the heck is going to happen once the c of a gets a seventh amendment issue, a manipulated echo issue where the atty had a CIP investigation launched and then all that material was buried because of the 7th, the advise "only one course of action" by the 7th attys...

Beginning to really think that the parties involved are not so confident that they got things right the first time

[nick]

If you study the Patterson showcause it is clear that a claimant IS ABLE to argue almost anything that they deem is relevant in their showcause.

It may not fly in the District Court, but it appears that the Court of Appeals will at least look at the relevance of the "other considerations"

Truley showcause is just another stage of this settlement process and not the end by any means.