<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>No Fault Defender - A Defense Attorney&#039;s Perspective on New York No-Fault Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nofault.lisquared.com/index.php?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com</link>
	<description>By: Jason Tenenbaum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:36:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>3211(a)(1) &#8211; does not apply to an EUO no-show defense</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1640</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1640#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedural Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Judgment Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[VIT Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51560(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2010)
The Civil Court found, not surprisingly, that CPLR 3211(a)(1) cannot be used to establish the bona fides of a policy violation defense.  This result was probably preordained in light of Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78 (2d Dept [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1640</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Munnelly letter &#8211; The proper reimbursement for MUA services</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1625</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1625#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fee Schedule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Giugliano v. Merchants, I discussed the Civil Court&#8217;s decision as it relates to the proper reimbursement for services that a chiropractor who performs MUA may charge.  I quoted a letter that the general counsel for the workers compensation board wrote on the topic.  Through a successful FOIL request, I am attaching the Munnelly letter.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1625</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff given a second chance to correct the form of his papers</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1619</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1619#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:33:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedural Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renew and reargue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ferrara v De Ming Song, 2010 NY Slip Op 51472(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
&#8220;[t]he affirmed reports of plaintiff&#8217;s medical provider in Florida, submitted in opposition to defendant&#8217;s motion, were not in admissible form, as the doctor was not licensed in the State of New York and, thus, was not authorized to execute an affirmation under [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1619</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How did you know that you never received the requested verification?</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1615</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1615#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Additional Verification]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51456(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
&#8220;[d]efendant failed to establish that plaintiff did not provide the requested verification. Defendant&#8217;s litigation examiner did not even allege that the requested verification was outstanding, and defendant&#8217;s attorney failed to demonstrate that she had personal knowledge to support her [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1615</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EUO letters were mailed and the Claimant failed to attend the EUO: summary judgment granted</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1612</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1612#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EUO issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal knowledge of no-show]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timliness of requests]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51455(U)(App.Term 2d Dept. 2010)
You have seem this before.
&#8220;Contrary to the Civil Court&#8217;s findings, defendant established the timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters. Defendant submitted the affirmation of a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct plaintiff&#8217;s EUO in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1612</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The spreadsheet was not in admissible form?</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1602</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1602#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EBT issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Material misrepresentation - procurement of insurance policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Total Family Chiropractic v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51470(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
This was another one that did not necessarily go my way.  By way of explanation, this was a complicated case, where the defense was whether plaintiff assignors made or conspired to make material misrepresentations in the procurement of the insurance [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1602</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Triable issue of fact found as to the issue of whether an injury was causally related to a motor vehicle accident</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1587</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1587#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephen Fealy, M.D., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51442(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
I was involved in this case.  The matter involved a knee surgery that the carrier alleged was not causally related to the motor vehicle accident.  The main piece of proof that was presented was a detailed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1587</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wouldn&#8217;t it be great if we could win them all?</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1584</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1584#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1584</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was just a thought as I read through the Appellate Term, Second Department, decisions that came out today.  I will confess that I was .5 for 3 in today&#8217;s appellate decisions, which should be some proof that this court is not as &#8220;defendant friendly&#8221; as too many practitioners urge the bar to believe.  I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1584</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Counterclaim based upon precludable fraud rebuffed</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1577</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1577#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:53:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preservation of defenses on NF-10]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51423(U)(Civ Kings. 2010)  Here are the five statements from this case that are important.
(1) &#8220;In an action to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, defendant seeks leave to amend its answers, strike the notices of trial, and compel discovery, including a deposition.&#8221;
(2) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1577</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A chiropactor may bill for manipulation under anethesia services &#8211; but you knew that already</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1571</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1571#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fee Schedule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=1571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Civil Court in a published decision rebuked an ill-fated, ill-conceived and senseless challenge to the proposition that a chiropractor may perform and bill for MUA services.
John Giugliano, DC, P.C. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20308 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2010)
While I might have my own personal misgivings about the MUA [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1571</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
