Decisions of Note

This is an interesting decision from the New York Appellate Division, Third Department regarding whether or not psychological injury breaches the threshold for serious injury in New York State.   Terri Brandt-Miller v Rory E. McArdle, 21 A.D.3d 1152, 801 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 06706.  In this matter the plaintiff claimed post-traumatic stress disorder two years post accident.

The Court indicated that a "causally - related  emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury".  In this case plaintiff's psychological records indicated "that nearly two years after the accident, plaintiff exhibited "symptoms of [posttraumatic stress disorder], including recurrent thoughts and memories of the [accident], driving anxiety, hypervigilance, and nightmares." The Court citing Bissonette v Compo 307 Ad2d 673, 672 N.Y.S. 2d 849 held "In our view, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff's alleged causally-related psychological injury did not amount to a serious injury."

 
Every Claims manager knows the defense costs on four consolidated actions in Kings County can run deep into their litigation budget. On the claims below we succeeded on summary judgment dismissal motions against all four claimants on a consolidated motion. The motion saved the Court the time to try the case to verdict and the carrier the expense of defending the claim through trial.  A job well done by Andrea Ferrucci, the head of our law and motions department.

A No Fault Appellate Decision with huge implications- Cornell Medical.

This Appellate case handled by Jason Tenenbaum at Picciano & Scahill has huge implications for many reasons. 

A medical provider now has to think twice before submitting a bill that is in excess of the fees that are allowable to be charged for that service.  Similarly, an attorney also has to think twice before taking a case involving a billing that is in excess of the fee schedule for fear that the attorney will not get paid for performing a legal service.  This case may reign in some of the overbilling for services that we have seen increasing in recent years. 

The Civil Court denied P&S's motion for summary judgment on the basis that we forfeited our right to rely on 65-4.6(i) since our denials and payments were untimely.  We appealed.  The Appellate Term, on appeal, agreed with our argument and modified the order of the Civil Court.  In pertinent part, the Appellate Term held that the regulation should be interpreted as written.  In this regard, an attorney fee is not due and owing when a medical provider bills in excess of the fee schedule, regardless of the timeliness or existence of a denial.  The Appellate Term, therefore, granted us partial summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiff would not be entitled to an attorney fee in this matter.
 
Jason Tenenbaum was successful in two more No-Fault Appellate Decisions recently.  In St. Vincent Medical Care v Mercury, we appealed the motion for partial summary judgment.  The Appellate court granted our appeal dismissing several causes of action.   In William Bongiorno v State Farm, Jason Tenenbaum argued before the Appellate Court and our motion for Summary Judgment was reversed without costs.