Not many law students have their homework read by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but two 3Ls wrote an amicus brief this fall that went before the nation’s highest tribunal.

Rachel King and Nick Verna wrote an amicus — or "friend of the court" — brief in the case of an employer that sought reimbursement for medical expenses it had paid on behalf of a worker who was seriously hurt in a car accident.

The case involves James McCutchen, a former U.S. Airways employee who settled a lawsuit he filed after the accident. The airline’s employee-benefit plan — which had covered McCutchen’s medical costs — sought to recoup the entire settlement amount, leaving McCutchen nothing to pay his lawyers or non-medical expenses.

The assignment came through the school’s Appellate Litigation Clinic, which allows students to work on appeals involving a host of legal issues, from immigration law to employment discrimination.

The brief, which was signed by legal scholars at five different law schools including Clinic Director Richard Frankel, argued that allowing U.S. Airways and its employee-benefits plan to recover settlement costs that were not for medical expenses represents "unjust enrichment."

Writing the brief required King and Verna to learn way more than they ever expected to about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law that covers health-insurance benefits as well as pension rights.

"It’s not the kind of thing young people usually worry about," Verna said. "But it affects 137 million people. Lots of people don’t even realize they’re covered by an ERISA plan."

The project required the students to study ERISA and federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare, as well as state laws that deal with medical insurance.

"The scope of what we were asked to do was massive," King said, adding that the 30-page brief represented just "the tip of the iceberg."

The pair spent 50 to 60 hours per week on the task for several weeks, making revisions that reflected the shifting strategies of McCutchen’s legal team and watching the advocates prepare for arguments.

For King, who completed a summer internship with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the assignment confirmed her desire to handle appellate law.

"It was the icing on the cake," she said.

Professor Amy Montemarano praised the students’ research and writing skills and their "ability to quickly tailor a broad survey of several areas of law to a persuasive and complex piece of advocacy."

Along with Montemarano and Frankel, the two students traveled to the Supreme Court on Nov. 27 to hear arguments in the case.

"The oral argument was really awesome," Verna said. "Justice Kennedy asked the other side how state insurance law would treat the issue. Since that was something I spent hours researching and that we mentioned in the brief, we all looked at each other and smiled. Who knows if it prompted the question, but it was still really gratifying that a topic we included in the brief ended up being discussed in the Supreme Court."