Great Neck, NY
Health care Lawyer at Great Neck, NY
Practice Areas: Health Care, Litigation
OUTCOME: Trial Verdict for Plaintiff
Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $1765.37. Defendant failed to rebut Plaintiff's claim. Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx. May 17, 2005. 25231/1999.
OUTCOME: Trial verdict for plaintiff
After trial, Plaintiff medical provider awarded judgment for no-fault medical services rendered by plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff
After Trial, Judgment for the plaintiff. Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens. April 8, 2005. 51249/2004
OUTCOME: Verdict for Plaintiff
At trial, judgment granted for plaintiff medical provider. April 1, 2005. Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings. 69980/2003.
OUTCOME: Trial verdict for plaintiff
Judgment for plaintiff medical provider after trial. Plaintiff sought first-party no-fault benefits for electromyography and nerve conduction (EMG/NVC) tests performed on plaintiff's assignor, who was ... injured in an automobile accident. The Court found that it is defendant's burden to prove that the tests were medically unnecessary, and that Defendant failed to carry that burden. On cross examination, Defendant's peer review doctor (name omitted) acknowledged that the EMG and NCV tests would be necessary to properly diagnose the patient's condition and determine a course of treatment. The Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to Judgment.
OUTCOME: verdict for plaintiff
Trial decison for plaintiff. At trial the parties stipulatedto the timeliness of the claim, timeliness of the denial, and that the only question before the Court was the issue of medical necessity. The ... Court found that the MRI in dispute was medically necessary, and directed the entry of judment for Bronx Radiology PC and against State Farm for the amount of the MRI plus statutory interest, statutory attorney's fees, costs and disbursements.
OUTCOME: Trial verdict for Plaintiff
Trial decison for plaintiff. At trial the parties stipulated to the timeliness of the claim, timeliness of the denial, and that the only question before the Court was the issue of medical necessity. Th ... e Court found that the MRIs (cervical spine and lumbar spine MRIs) in dispute were medically necessary, and directed the entry of judment for Bronx Radiology PC and against State Farm for the amount of the MRIs plus statutory interest, statutory attorney's fees, costs and disbursements.
OUTCOME: Reversed on appeal in favor of Plaintiff
Trial court dismissal of complaint reversed on appeal. The Appellate Term held that provider's reservation of right to collect debt from insured in event no-fault insurer did not pay did not invalidate ... insured's assignment and written authorization to pay benefits directly to provider. Trial Counsel argument for Plaintiff by Stacy Mandel Levine, Esq. Citation: Rehab Medical Care of New York PC, 184 Misc2d 140 (2000); Reversed (in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant) 188 Misc2d 176.
OUTCOME: D's Motion to consolidate denied
Defendant moved for consolidation under CPLR 602(a). Defendant also sought preclusion in regard to disclosure matters in each of the three actions. The application is denied in its entirety. Defenda ... nt did not identify any common question of law or face that would support consolidation. The circumstance, standing alone, that the litigations arose from a single motor vehicle accident is insufficient to obtain Sec 602 (a) relief. It is noted that the cases involve two different plaintiff patients who were treated by two different medical providers. Index nos: 1344/2001 1267/2001 1341/2001
OUTCOME: Judgment for Plaintiff affirmed
Insured's assignee (Plaintiff) brought action to recover no-fault benefits. Trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and insurer appealed. The Appellate Term affirmed, holding that ... insurer's failure to deny insured's claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days of receipt of proof of claim and amount of loss sustained precluded insurer from asseting affirmative defense that it denied benefits on the ground that the tests administered were not medically necessary. Stacy Mandel Levine, counsel on appeal, for respondent. 186 Misc2d 847, Appellate Term, Second Department, (December 6, 2000).
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
