Great Neck, NY
Health care Lawyer at Great Neck, NY
Practice Areas: Health Care, Litigation
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict for Plaintiff
At trial, on cross examination defendant's expert agreed that the management (of the patient) could be changed or modified based upon whether the injury was muscular as opposed to nerve root injury. De ... cision for Plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict for Plaintiff
Trial conducted as to the medical necessity of services rendered by Plaintiff, an MRI imaging facility. Based upon a review of the medical reports of the treating physician and the peer review report o ... f (D's peer review doctor) the Court found that defendant has not made out its prima facie case that the services rendered were not medically necessary. The Court further found that notwithstanding the defendant's failure to make out its prima facie case, that the testimony of [Plaintiff's expert rebuttal witness]would have been sufficient to rebut the peer doctor's testimony. Judgment for Plaintiff. Citation: Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, J. Mayersohn, December 21, 2007, Index No: 169985/2006.
OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff
At trial, Plaintiff established its prima facie case for no-fault benefits. Based on the crediable evidence presented it was determined that Defendant was served with an Assignment of benefits Form. Ci ... tation: Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx, J. Barbato, June 7, 2007, Index No BCV 38637/2005.
OUTCOME: Trial verdict for plaintiff
After consideration of the credible evidence, the Court finds that defendant failed to sustain its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical tests conducted were not wi ... thin generally accepted medical and professional standards and would not further the patient's diagnosis and treatment and therefore not medically necessary. [Plaintiff's rebuttal witness] testified that clinical testing was not clear and that electro diagnostic testingw as necessary to rule out further problems. [The treating physician] had found a loss of range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine during the examination. Even further, given the presence of continuing radiating pain [the treating doctor] ordered electro diagnostic testing for evidence of myelopathy or radiculopathy. For the foregoing reasons the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $3134.31 plus statutory interest from August 19, 2005 and costs. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter judgment accordingly.
OUTCOME: Affirmed for Plaintiff
Defendant's summary judgment motion to dismiss was properly denied by the trial court. It is uncontroverted that plaintiff was duly formed as a professional medical corporation. A medical professional ... corporation is entitled to payment of assigned no-fault benefits for services performed by properly licensed nonphysician employees, such as acupuncturists or chiropractors. Citation: 2006 NYSlipOP 52118(U), Appellate Term, First Department, November 9, 2006.
OUTCOME: Trial decision for Plaintiff
After due deliberation and consideration of all of the crediable documentary and testimonial evidence adduced at trial, the court awards judgment in the amount of $879.73 [for a cervical spine MRI] plu ... s statutory interest and attorneys fees. Defendant failed to satisfy its burden in that the credible testimony of [defendant's peer review doctor] was rebutted by the equally credible testimony of [plaintiff's expert rebuttal witness] who opined that the taking of an MRI 8 days after the accident can assist in the diagnosis/treatment of a nerve injury when radiating pain was stated which was of concern to the treating physician. Judgment for Plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict for Plaintiff
Plaintiff-assignee brought this action against defendant, the assignor's no-fault carrier to recover for services rendered to the assignor, which included a series of neurological diagnostic tests all ... of which were conducted several weeks following the motor vehicle accident. Defendant contends.... was no medically necessary. The Court finds that after conducting a trial plaintiff is entitled to recover for the services rendered and determined to be medically necessary. [The court noted in part:] A standard for medical necessity based upon generally accepted medical professionalpractice also recognizes the health care provider's professional responsibility to the patient. The long-standing paradigm for a doctor's responsibility is the objective reasonable prudent doctor standard under which the doctor's performance is "measured against the conduct of his or her own peers." See Nestorovich v. Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398 (2002). Judgment awarded for Plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff
After Trial, Judgment for the Plaintiff along with statutory costs, disbursements, interest and attorneys fees.
OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff
After trial, Judgment for Plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Trial verdict for Plaintiff
At trial, found that based on the testimony admitted at Trial, Defendant has not sustained its burden of showing that the MRI rendered to the above assignee was not medically necessary. Judgment for Pl ... aintiff.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
