IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50926(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affirmation submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct EUOs of plaintiff was not made on personal knowledge and, therefore, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50909(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affirmation by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as defendant’s cross-moving papers did not contain proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question
New Beginnings Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50916(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Contrary to defendant’s contention, the initial affirmation submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff’s assignor was not made on personal knowledge and, therefore, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint”
Maybe instead of speaking at NICB seminars (I have been at a few) and broadcasting their prowess at stopping fee splitting and self referrals (see New Way v. Allstate), this firm should have a better organizational process in mailing EUO letters and recording no-shows. I have trouble fathoming why any insurance company would want to give business to this entity when they cannot substantiate their work product. I have to imagine Civil Court judges and arbitrators must say “this firm”, oh they cannot prove the no show. That is what I think, and seeing who is representing some of these carriers nowadays (these are 2013 decisions that are being reversed), clients see things the same way as me.
8 Responses
WHile i dont know that facts of the underlying cases, it seems you have a vendetta against this firm. Not sure what the reason is other than professional jealousy or envy. your constant personal attacks take away from what is an otherwise valuable resource…JUST REMEMBER, HE WHO LIVES IN A GLASS HO– USE…
Nah, I just see so many cases with this firm where they drop the ball that I am kind of outraged. It affects all of us on the defense side. There are really good EUO firms out there who do a good job. Examples: (1) Rubin, Fiorella (2) Rivkin; (3) Barry Cohen’s firm; (4) Pat McDonnell’s firm. Not jealousy. I just call out sloppy legal work when it happens so frequently.
Billing > Winning.
Giar – While I cannot speak on Behalf of Mr. Tenenbaum this issue, he consistently put every firm – on both sides – to task when when it comes to “imperfect layering”. In fact, he does not shy away from posting his own unfavorable cases of which he lost, so “vendettas” and “jealousy” simply do not factor into this equation. The fact of the matter is, decisions like these potentially affect the entire defendant’s bar in an extremely negatively fashion and ultimately mean more work for everyone when it cones to defending in this issue including a revamping or total overhaul of affidavits. If I was on the defense side, under the facts of this case, I would be extremely annoyed as well.
It’s hardly a vendetta when 9/10 of those decisions come from the place. Would you rather he congratulate them on all their hard work and success? Keep up the good work; you tried your best? Maybe a participation award?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
So I guess they are a little insane?
Every EUO firm Jason mentioned are killers … Death …. Assassins … especially when they do an EUO of the unrepresented or the equivalent thereof — many of the hacks that rep providers in euos.
the hacks that prep the clients 30 minutes before. never review the financials or most importantly never review the financials with the client.
At the Zuppa firm you get as many prep sessions as you want. 2.5 to 3 hour sessions. I investigate you before you come in and do a real euo of you. etc. etc.
not a plug …
i do not do euos anymore … the client never stops calling … “are they going to pay me?” Twice a day. And they are so stupid … melon heads.
then the arb/lit lawyers call … “is he going to get paid”
Sue the Goddam insurance company if you want to get paid.
being an insurance company lawyer is easy. the providers are wimps.
I for one am thankful for the cases against this firm, it helps when we do cross-motions. Thank you for this.