In our latest adventure to the Appellate Term, entitled Exclusive Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group, 2009 NY Slip Op 502273(u)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009),
The District Court of Appeal, Third Division answered this question in the affirmative. In the matter of Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto Ins.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) Sensing the belief that no-fault actions were starting to follow
In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Term, First Department in Krishna v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51312(U)(App.
In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Term, First Department in Krishna v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51312(U)(App.
Bronze Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51219(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) This case hints at what a medical provider must proffer
Bronze Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51219(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) This case hints at what a medical provider must proffer
Bongiorno v State Farm Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 50860(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) This case is not remarkable in any way, except according to
I can’t comment much on this matter, but if you read the record on appeal in this matter and the record on appeal in the matter
In an indiscreet case which garnered a “u” cite, the Appellate Term, Second Department made its first foray into determining what evidence is sufficient to raise
I encounter on many levels summary judgment motions predicated upon the defense that a service lacks medical necessity in accordance with a peer review which finds
I got that line from another blogger. That comment refers to a case that is anything but remarkable. Although there was a long and very thoughtful
