60 based on her recovery, but have not collected on it.This action arises because of a change in New York law that affects plaintiffs and the class members. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-335 states that “except where there is a statutory right of reimbursement, no party entering into such a settlement shall be subject to a subrogation claim or claim for reimbursement by a benefit provider and a benefit provider shall have no lien or right of subrogation or reimbursement against any such settling party, with respect to those losses or expenses that have been or are obligated to be paid or reimbursed by said benefit provider.” In this action, the plaintiffs challenged how this provision is affected by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901-8914, which provides health benefits for federal employees and their dependants. FEHBA provides that the terms of any contract under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901-8914, which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any state or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans.

Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils, No. 16-149: The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) is authorized under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (“FEHBA”), 5 U.S.C. §8901 et seq., to contract with private carriers for federal employees’ health insurance. The contracts with private carriers that OPM negotiates provide for reimbursement and subrogation.

33 be given effect?" In addition to Gloucester County, the Court added another five cases to its docket:Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch(16-54) asks whether consensual sex between a 21 year old and a 17 year old can "constitute[] the ‘aggravated felony' of ‘sexual abuse of a minor' under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - and therefore constitute[] grounds for mandatory removal" if the defendant is convicted under the laws of one of the 7 states that criminalize this conduct notwithstanding that the model penal code and 43 states do not make such conduct illegal.Coventry Healthcare of Missouri v. Nevils(16-149) asks (1) Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act ("FEHBA"), 5 U.S.C. § 8901 et seq., preempts state laws that prevent private insurance carriers from seeking subrogation or reimbursement pursuant to their FEHBA contracts; and (2) Whether FEHBA's express-preemption provision, 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(l), violates the Supremacy Clause.Packingham v. North Carolina(15-1194) involves an interesting question in this digital age. N.C. Gen. Stat.