Segal, Adam P.

Adam Segal represents numerous ERISA, multiemployer and public employer employee benefit trust funds and plans with respect to all aspects of benefit plan representation.

Adam carries significant experience in employee benefits plan design, drafting and qualification; IRS determination letter applications; fiduciary duties; trustee meetings and advice; IRS and Department of Labor audit defense; regulatory compliance under ERISA, HIPAA, WHCRA, PHSA and other applicable laws; litigation, including ERISA collections and claim defense, fiduciary liability, withdrawal liability (both plan and employer side) and Ninth and Tenth Circuit appeals.

Adam also serves as a AAA panel arbitrator for withdrawal liability disputes.

Representative Matters
  • Obtained summary judgment against Westgate LVH, LLC and a subsidiary company for successor withdrawal liability. Westgate purchased the Las Vegas Hilton after a foreclosure auction. However, the Hilton did not pay its share of unfunded vested liability to a multiemployer pension plan. The Plan then successfully pursued Westgate for successor withdrawal liability and was awarded a judgment for over $2M. Westgate LVH, LLC v. Trustees of Nevada Resort Ass'n-Iatse Local 720 Pension Tr., No. 217CV01731RFBNJK, 2019 WL 4738013 (D. Nev. Sept. 28, 2019).

  • Obtained summary judgment against Nevada Labor Commissioner that state statute purporting to regulate trusts was preempted by ERISA. Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers, 168 F. Supp.3d 1320 (D. Nev. March 10, 2016). After the Nevada legislature modified the statute and a 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision reversing the district court, obtained unanimous en banc opinion from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the issue was moot. 941 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

  • Obtained temporary restraining order against the Clark County School District due to an alleged Open Meeting Law Violation, halting its plan to remove over 170 people from their Dean of Students positions. The restraining order combined with public pressure caused the District to abandon its plan of removing all of the Deans.

  • Obtained judgment against benefit plan participant who committed fraud by misrepresenting his marriage statuses in an attempt to gain more benefits than he was entitled to receive.

  • Successfully obtained a $19.5 million interest arbitration ruling for the Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees (CCASA) against the Clark County School District, the fifth largest school district in the nation. After an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator determined that the District had the ability to pay CCASA’s offer and the administrators were historically and comparatively underpaid while work requirements were increasing.

  • Obtained judgment against employer for withdrawal liability on behalf of pension plan. Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan v. Southwest Air Conditioning, Inc., 2012 WL 6096672 (D. Nev. December 4, 2012).

  • Successfully defended employee benefit fund against a hospital’s $750,000 ERISA benefit claim. We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment by demonstrating that the underlying patient was not eligible for benefits at the time of treatment.

  • Obtained a $1.9M judgment against employer, alter ego company and owner/fiduciaries who failed to pay their employees’ fringe benefits. Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan v. Security Plumbing & Air Conditioning, 2017 WL 923913 (D. Nev. March 8, 2017).

  • Nevada Labor Commissioner that the state statute purporting to regulate trusts was preempted by ERISA. Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers, 168 F. Supp.3d 1320, (D. Nev. March 10, 2016).

  • Successful defense of health plan from participant claim for benefits. Glasco v. Employee Benefit Management Services, No. A15-719199-C (Nev.Dist.Ct. Aug. 31, 2016).

  • Successfully defended labor organization against a former member in a federal action alleging multiple discrimination claims and, simultaneously, in a proceeding in front of the Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board (“EMRB”). We prevailed in the EMRB Proceeding after participating in an administrative hearing and in the federal action by obtaining summary judgment. The labor organization was awarded attorneys’ fees in the federal proceeding as a prevailing defendant in a civil rights action.

  • Obtained judgment that included punitive damages against dental office for fraudulent billing to health plan. Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Vargas, No. 12A673576 (Nev.Dist.Ct. June 12, 2014).

  • Obtained judgments against participants who were ineligible for health plan benefits but erroneously received them. Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund for Southern Nevada v. Beavers, No. 2:13-cv-00824, 2014 WL 1302035 (D. Nev. March 28, 2014)

  • Obtained judgment against a bond company for ERISA employer’s debt to multiemployer benefit trust funds and for attorneys’ fees in excess of bond limit. Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters v Pyles, No. 12A663410, 2013 WL 6222083 (Nev.Dist.Ct. Oct. 18, 2013)

  • Assisted in obtaining judgment against pension plan’s investment manager and investment consultant for overcharging commissions and engaging in prohibited transactions. Trustees of Nevada Resort Ass’n – Int’l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of U.S. & Canada Local 720 Pension Trust v. Grasswood Partners, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-00044-MMD, 2013 WL 1249617 (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2013).

  • Janis Carmona v. Judy Carmona, 544 F. 3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008). ERISA preempts efforts by pension plan participant's eighth wife (and widow) to take survivor annuity away from seventh wife, who was married to the participant at the time of his retirement.

  • Guthart v. White, 263 F. 3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2001). ERISA health plan participant who sued plan for benefits did not perform qualifying work and, although contributions were made to ERISA plan on his behalf, was not entitled to plan coverage or benefits.

  • Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape, Inc., 333 F. 3d 923 (9th Cir. 2003). Jurisdiction over ERISA plan's pendent party claims against non-ERISA defendants is constitutional and lower court erred in dismissing the state claims even though ERISA claims were resolved.

  • Trustees of the Utah Carpenters' and Cement Masons' Pension Trust v. Daw, Inc., 2009 WL 77856 (D. Utah). Employer's successor's withdrawal liability; successor's failure to arbitrate withdrawal liability waived all defenses; successor was not entitled to refund of contributions allegedly made by "mistake."

  • Assisted in obtaining judgment against a company created to avoid multiemployer benefit trust fund obligations owed by a prior alter ego company. Trustees of Const. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Pro-Cut LLC, No. 2:12-CV-00205-APG, 2013 WL 4049662 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2013).

  • Counsel to Trustees of Construction Industry & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust in obtaining judgment against individual owners of company for fiduciary liability tied to company’s failure to remit fringe benefit contributions to multiemployer trust funds.

  • A bond held by ERISA employer was found liable for ERISA employer’s debt to multiemployer benefit trust funds and for attorney’s fees in excess of penal sum. Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Pyles, A663410, 2013 WL 6222083 and subsequent order entered on Jan. 28, 2014 (Nev.Dist.Ct.).

  • Assisted in obtaining judgment against employer for delinquent contributions, interest, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees on behalf of multiemployer benefit funds. Trustees of the Const. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Advanced Traffic Safety, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-01602-KJD, 2012 WL 938652 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2012).

  • Counsel to Board of Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union in obtaining judgment against employer that failed to pay its employees’ fringe benefits.

  • Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Trust Funds, 125 Nev. 16 (2009). ERISA trust funds have standing to assert Little Miller Act bond claims; ERISA trust funds were not required to provide prior notice to general contractor of claim for subcontractor's delinquent trust contributions, owed under Nevada's general contractor liability statute, unlike Little Miller Act bond claims.

  • Trustees of the Utah Carpenters' and Cement Masons' Pension Trust v. New Star/Culp, 2009 WL 1351580 (D. Utah). ERISA plan's motion for attorneys' fees, interest, liquidated damages and costs, was not subject to the 14-day filing limit for attorneys' fees motions, which did not apply to ERISA actions; plan awarded all fees, interest, liquidated damages and costs sought.

  • Trustees of the Utah Carpenters' and Cement Masons' Pension Trust v. New Star/Culp, 2009 WL 321573 (D. Utah). Employer waived all withdrawal liability defenses by failing to arbitrate its claim that it had not withdrawn under the construction industry rules; employer's counterclaim against plan fiduciaries for alleged failure to investigate circumstances of withdrawal also had to be arbitrated, and was not timely raised in any event.

  • Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Fund et al. v. Redland Insurance [Summit Landscape] et al., 460 F. 3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2006). ERISA plan can recover paralegal fees and online research costs as attorneys' fees under ERISA if billing separately for such items is consistent with standard billing practices of local legal market; lower court decision disallowing all paralegal fees and online charges is reversed.

  • Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 v. Developers Surety, 84 P. 3d 59 (Nev. 2004). Trust fund could recover attorneys fees from bonding company in excess of bond amount where bonding company litigated directly against the trust regarding liability.

  • Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Fund et al. v. Summit Landscape Services et al., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D. Nev. 2004). ERISA plan can recover contributions from employer and other liable parties, despite employer's claim that employees were not union members and that plan trustee had orally reached an accord and satisfaction: ERISA does not permit unwritten plan obligations.

  • Smith Green Corporation v. Trustees of the Construction Industry Laborers Health Welfare Trust, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Nev. 2003). ERISA preempts state law claims against ERISA plan for intentional interference, breach of contract, etc. and defendant would be sanctioned for asserting them after ERISA plan's counsel provided defendant's attorney with preemption authorities.

  • U.S. Design v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Trust Funds, 50 P. 3d 170 (Nev. 2002). General contractor was liable for unpaid ERISA trust contributions owed by its subcontractor, pursuant to state law, and all trust's attorneys fees, after general contractor lost on summary judgment.

  • Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Tab Contractors, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Nev. 2002). ERISA plan cannot be sued by employer under Labor Management Relations Act.

  • Trustees of the Cement Masons and Plasterers Health and Welfare Trust v. Fabel Concrete, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Nev. 2001). A bond held by ERISA employer's alter ego was liable for ERISA employer's debt to ERISA plan.

  • Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape, 156 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Nev. 2001). ERISA trust can recover defaulted subcontractor's ERISA plan liability from its general contractor although merits of claim were never proven.

  • United Association v. Grove, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Nev. 2000). ERISA does not preempt state law allowing benefit plan to recover plan contributions from employer's general contractor.

News & Events

Board of Directors, HealthInsight

Publications & Presentations
  • Now on the COVID-19 Menu: Temporary Flexibility for Cafeteria Plans

    With the 2019 novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) national health emergency continuing, employers are continuing to try to find ways to help their employees. In response to requests from employers, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has issued guidance, in the form of to Notices,1 to temporarily allow greater flexibility in midyear coverage and election changes under group health plans and flexible spending accounts (“FSA”). This guidance also provides some clarification with respect to (i) high deductible health plans (“HDHPs”) and COVID-19-related expenses and (ii) telehealth benefits.

    Midyear Elections under Cafeteria Plans and Flexible Spending Accounts in 2020

    Cafeteria plans and FSAs can be amended to permit eligible employees to make the following midyear changes during calendar year 2020, and no particular reason for making any such change is required:

    • Election Changes Related to Group Health Coverage:
      • Eligible employees can be allowed to make a new election for coverage under the employer’s group health plan on a prospective basis, if the employee initially declined that coverage.
      • If the employer group health plan offers different health coverage options, eligible employees can be allowed to revoke an existing election and make a new election to enroll in a different health coverage option sponsored by the same employer on a prospective basis.
      • Eligible employees can be allowed to revoke existing coverage under the employer’s group health plan on a prospective basis, provided the employee attests in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other comprehensive health coverage not sponsored by the employer.
        • Reliance on Employee’s Attestation. The employer may rely on this attestation unless the employer has actual knowledge that the employee is not or will not be enrolling in other coverage. Helpfully, in Notice 2020-29, the IRS provides an example of an acceptable written attestation. Brownstein Comment: It would be helpful if the IRS were to provide some examples of situations where an employer would be considered to have actual knowledge (other than the example of an employee saying aloud they aren’t going to buy other coverage).
      • Election Changes Related to Health and Dependent Care FSA Participation: Eligible employees can revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election applicable to a health FSA and/or dependent care FSA on a prospective basis. The ability to make this change applies to all health FSAs, including limited purpose health FSAs. The IRS notes in Notice 2020-33 that, although only future salary may be reduced under the revised election, amounts contributed to the health FSA after the revised election may be used for any medical care expense incurred during the first plan year that begins on or after Jan. 1, 2020.
      • Other Considerations:
        • Employer Discretion. Subject to the applicable nondiscrimination rules, an employer may exercise its discretion in determining which midyear election changes will be made available during 2020, whether there will be any limitations on the frequency with which employees may make these prospective midyear changes during 2020, and the extent of those elections. For example:
          • An employer may offer a one-time election to be effective July 1, or allow elections to be made once each calendar quarter or after some stated number of days.
          • An employer may limit group health coverage elections only to provide for broader coverage, for example, amend the plan to only allow for election changes from single to family coverage, or from the plan’s low option to its high option.
          • The IRS specifically noted that an employer may consider adverse selection when deciding whether and to what extent to make this midyear election available.
        • Limitations to Recover FSA Reimbursements Already Made. With respect to FSA election changes, the employer can limit midyear election changes to amounts no less than amounts already reimbursed.
        • Guidance Applies Retroactively. Helpfully, the IRS extends reliance on this guidance retroactively to Jan. 1, 2020, in an acknowledgment that some employers already have permitted these types of midyear elections prior to the issuance of IRS guidance allowing for these kinds of midyear elections. Brownstein Comment: Employers that have done so should review their plan amendments and procedures to make sure they are consistent with this guidance. If the prior amendment and procedures are not consistent, the employer should consider changes to confirm to this guidance.
        • Amendment Required. Cafeteria and FSA plans wishing to implement any of the midyear election changes discussed above must be properly amended. In accordance with Notice 2020-29, any such amendment for the 2020 plan year must be adopted on or before Dec. 31, 2021, and, as indicated above, can be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2020, provided that the plan previously was administered consistent with the amendment and all eligible employees were informed of the plan changes.
    Additional Guidance
    • Extension of Period to Use FSA Grace Period and Carryover Amounts. Health FSAs and dependent care FSAs can be amended to allow employees to apply unused amounts remaining in a health FSA or a dependent care FSA as of the end of a grace period or carryover period ending in 2020 or a plan year ending in 2020 to pay or reimburse expenses incurred for the same qualified benefit through Dec. 31, 2020. This extension applies whether the FSA utilizes a grace period or a carryover provision—but the rule that a health FSA cannot have a grace period and a carryover provision remains in effect.2
      • Impact on HSA Eligibility. It is important to note that an employer’s decision to implement this discretionary extension to year-end 2020 is viewed by the IRS as an extension of coverage by a health plan that is not an HDHP for purposes of determining whether an eligible individual qualifies to make contributions to an HSA (except in the case of an HSA-compatible health FSA, such as a limited purpose health FSA). Therefore, an employee who is eligible for reimbursements from a health FSA during this extended period of time would not be eligible to make contributions to an HSA (except in the case of an HSA-compatible health FSA, such as a limited purpose health FSA). Brownstein Comment: It is unclear whether an employee is ineligible to make HSA contributions where the employer amends the health FSA plan to add the carryover extension but the employee who is covered under an HDHP option in 2020 did not participate in the health FSA in 2020 or does not have a carryover balance from 2019. Employers need to make certain they understand the complexities that may arise if they implement this extension.
    • Increase in Health FSA Carryover Amount. In Notice 2020-33, the IRS has increased the maximum carryover amount under a health FSA to be an amount equal to 20% of the maximum salary reduction contribution allowed for that year, subject to some rounding rules. As a result, the maximum unused amount from a plan year starting in 2020 allowed to be carried over to the immediately following plan year beginning in 2021 is $550.
    • Amendment Required. Health FSAs wishing to extend the carryover access period and/or implement the larger carryover amount must be amended. With respect to the larger carryover amount, the amendment can provide for the specific dollar amount or reflect the formulaic increase, so that future amendments are not needed as the maximum carryover amount is increased in later years. A plan that will utilize the increased carryover amount for the 2020 plan year must be amended no later than Dec. 31, 2021, and the amendment may be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2020, provided all employees eligible to participate in the plan are notified of the changes to the health FSA. A plan that will utilize the increased carryover amount for a plan year that begins in 2021 must be amended by the last day of that plan’s 2021 plan year.
    • Timing of Reimbursements from Health Plans. In an effort to address practical difficulties related to the general rule that only payment or reimbursement for medical care expenses incurred by an employee during the plan year may be excluded from that year’s income and wages under Code Secs. 105 and 106 and provide a rule of administrative convenience, Notice 2020-33 provides that, notwithstanding the normally applicable rules under Code Secs. 105, 106 and 125 as to when expenses are incurred, a health plan is permitted to treat an expense for a premium for health insurance coverage as incurred on (1) the first day of each month of coverage on a pro rata basis, (2) the first day of the period of coverage, or (3) the date the premium is paid. Thus, for example, an individual coverage HRA with a calendar-year plan year may immediately reimburse a substantiated premium for health insurance coverage that begins on Jan. 1 of that plan year, even if the covered individual paid the premium for the coverage prior to the first day of the plan year. Brownstein Comment: For this purpose, a health plan includes including a premium-reimbursement plan in a cafeteria plan or an individual coverage HRA.
    Clarification of Prior Guidance Regarding HDHPs and COVID-19-Related Treatment

    Our March 12, 2020, alert (“Health Plan Coverage of Coronavirus Testing and Treatment”) discussed IRS Notice 2020‑15, which confirms that (i) an HDHP can fully pay for all testing and medical treatment related to COVID‑19 before the otherwise applicable annual minimum deductible has been met and (ii) individuals participating in such HDHPs continue to be eligible to make HSA contributions. Now, in Notice 2020-29, the IRS clarifies that:

    • The relief provided in Notice 2020-15 regarding HDHPs and expenses related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19 applies with respect to reimbursements of expenses incurred on or after Jan. 1, 2020.
    • The panel of diagnostic testing for influenza A & B, norovirus and other coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and any items or services required to be covered with zero cost sharing under section 6001 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127, 134 Stat. 178 (March 18, 2020)), as amended by the CARES Act, are part of testing and treatment for COVID-19 for purposes of Notice 2020-15.
    • An otherwise eligible individual with HDHP coverage may receive coverage for telehealth and other remote care services outside the HDHP, before satisfying the deductible of the HDHP, and still contribute to an HSA. This exception applies with respect to these services if provided on or after Jan. 1, 2020, with respect to plan years beginning on or before Dec. 31, 2021.
      • The IRS provides the following example to illustrate this clarification: An otherwise eligible individual with coverage under an HDHP who, beginning Feb. 15, 2020, also received coverage for telehealth and other remote care services under an arrangement that is not an HDHP and before satisfying the deductible for the HDHP will not be disqualified from contributing to an HSA during 2020.
    Required and Recommended Actions

    If you are an employer that wants to make the midyear cafeteria plan election flexibility available to employees or the additional FSA changes, you should take the following actions (in addition to the actions described above):

    • Determine the Plan Changes Appropriate to Your Workforce. An employer should consider what are the appropriate changes permitted under the Notices to implement for its workforce, and when they should become effective: midyear election flexibility, extension of the availability of the carryover amount, increase in the maximum carryover amount, and HDHP coverage of COVID-19-related treatment and telehealth. Also consider what administrative processes will be necessary or desirable to implement any of these changes.
      • If Fully Insured, Check With Insurer. If your group health plan is fully insured, we recommend that you communicate with your insurer the desire to make the midyear election changes available to employees to make sure the insurer will process and pay claims incurred as a result of these election changes. Failure to do so could result in the employer being responsible for paying for claims incurred as a result of allowing these midyear election changes.
      • Work With Vendors. If your cafeteria plan is administered by a third-party administrator (“TPA”), you can expect to hear from the TPA about the ability to make these changes. We expect the TPA also will ask you to complete an election form to indicate which of the flexible options you want to implement. While this election would serve to establish intent and document administrative practice, an official plan amendment still is required to be properly adopted.
    • Timely Adopt Plan Amendments. Employers have until Dec. 31, 2021, to adopt amendments to their cafeteria plans to reflect the decisions to implement the midyear election provisions in 2020 and/or the FSA claim extension in 2020 and/or implement the increased carryover limit in 2020. This amendment can be effective retroactively to Jan. 1, 2020. Make sure that any plan amendments that are adopted retroactively are consistent with prior plan administration.
    • Notify Employees. If you amend your plan(s) for any of these permitted changes, be certain to notify employees of the changes, as well as any rules and procedures that they must follow.
    • Keep Alert. Since it is unclear when the COVID-19 national health emergency may end, it is important to keep alert for any other benefits‑related guidance that the IRS (or other agencies) may issue.
    How We Can Help

    Please contact one of us or your regular Brownstein attorney for answers to your questions about how this new guidance affects cafeteria plan administration and for assistance in plan amendments and developing related communications to your employees.

    Click here to read more Brownstein alerts on the legal issues the coronavirus threat raises for businesses.

    This document is intended to provide you with general information about employee benefits issues. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact one of the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.

    1 See, IRS Notice 2020-29, COVID-19 Guidance Under § 125 Cafeteria Plans and Related to High Deductible Health Plans, and IRS Notice 2020-33, Section 125 Cafeteria Plans - Modification of Permissive Carryover Rule for Health Flexible Spending Arrangements and Clarification Regarding Reimbursements of Premiums by Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements.

    2 IRS Notice 2020-29 citing IRS Notice 2013-71, Modification of “Use-or-Lose” Rule For Health Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs) and Clarification Regarding 2013-2014 Non-Calendar Year Salary Reduction Elections Under § 125 Cafeteria Plans.

  • For Whom the Timing Tolls: The COVID-19 Outbreak Period Extends Benefit Plan Deadlines
    Brownstein Client Alert, May 6, 2020

  • How Employers Can Assist Employees (Current and Former) Right Now
    Brownstein Client Alert, March 24, 2020

  • Health Plan Coverage of Coronavirus Testing and Treatment

    Brownstein Client Alert, March 12, 2020

  • “Actual Knowledge” Required to Apply ERISA’S Three-Year Statute of Limitations to Fiduciary Breach Claims

    Brownstein Client Alert, February 27, 2020

  • Employee Benefits-Related Limits For 2020
    Brownstein Client Alert, November 7, 2019

  • IRS Implements Prospective Expansion of Determination Letter Program to Merged Plans
    Brownstein Client Alert, May 7, 2019

  • IRS Expands Self-Correction of Retirement Plan Errors

    Brownstein Client Alert, April 25, 2019

  • 2019 Increases for Employee Benefits-Related Limits
    Brownstein Client Alert, November 16, 2018

  • Revised Employee Benefits-Related Limits for 2018; Decreases in Family HSA Contributions and Adoption Assistance Require Action
    Brownstein Client Alert, March 6, 2018

  • Updated Employee Benefits-Related Limits for 2018

    Brownstein Client Alert, November 30, 2017

  • Employee Benefits-Related Limits for 2018
    Brownstein Client Alert, November 7, 2017

  • How to Handle Mass Withdrawals
    IFEBP Benefit Plan Professionals Institute for Accountants, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 14, 2011

  • Withdrawal Liability
    IFEBP Trustees and Administrators Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 13, 2011

  • Bankruptcy Fundamentals
    IFEBP Collection Procedures Institute

  • Pros and Cons on Bonds
    International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) Collection Procedures Institute

  • QDRO Creation in Nevada
    National Business Institute

  • Under Funded Health and Welfare Funds
    Union Affiliated Contractors (UAC) Unity Meeting

  • Presentation on Assembly Bill 286 (public retiree health law)
    3rd Annual Nevada Public Employer Labor Relations Conference

  • A New Take on Subrogation
    IFEBP Health Care Management Conference

  • Bonding and Workshop on Bonding
    IFEBP Collection Procedures Institute

  • Mock Collection Committee
    IFEBP Collection Procedures Institute

  • Drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to Divide a Pension

  • J.D., 1996, cum laude, Santa Clara University School of Law
  • B.A., 1992, with honors, University of California, Santa Cruz
  • Nevada
  • California
  • U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Best Lawyers in America, 2008-2020

Managing Editor, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Santa Clara University School of Law


American Bar Association

Clark County Bar Association

State Bar of California

State Bar of Nevada