The standard to rebut a peer review was raised a few notches
July 16, 2009 No Comments
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
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.
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
This is similar to the cases where a peer doctor fails to review sufficient documentation before arriving at an opinion. “Lack of Foundation to form an
Again, this is not necessarily a pure no-fault post. However, this is a no-fault post by analogy. I came across a doosy of a decision and
At this point in our PIP jurisprudence, it has been taken for granted that a defense of medical necessity extends to the four corners of the
