No Fault Defender – A Defense Attorney's Perspective on New York No-Fault Law
The treating doctor must meaningfully disagree with the IME doctor’s findings and conclusions that prospective services are not medically necessary
In the upcoming days, you will see the case of “Innovative Chiropractic v. Mercury Ins. Co” pop up on the most recent decision website. Innovative Chiropractic will cite to “Pan Chiropractic v. Mercury Ins. Co”, and factually, it will read like “Bronze Acupuncture v. Mercury Ins. Co.” You will also learn that the case was worth $168.00, and might wonder what I was thinking when I appealed it. But most importantly, you will see that there are certain trends in the law that are now being created. As a defendant, these trends are quite desirable; yet as a Plaintiff, these trends are clearly not the end of the world or anywhere near it. This is all just another day in the land of New York no-fault.
Here it is: Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 52321(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)
Leave a Reply
