Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: The Rogak Report: The Most Useful Publication In The Insurance Claims Industry The Rogak Report: 19 Feb 2010 ** No Fault - Notice To Admit **

Expand Messages
  • David M. Barshay
    The decision says the insurer s defense was lack of medical necessity, indicating that the defendant could not have truthfully denied the allegations of the
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 19 2:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      The decision says the insurer’s defense was lack of medical necessity, indicating that the defendant could not have truthfully denied the allegations of the notice to admit without subjecting itself to perjury consequences.  Certainly, if the carrier truly did not receive the bill, I agree with you that they should have denied the allegations.  However, that does not appear to be the case here.

       



      [Had Progressive issued a qualified admission (or qualified denial) to the Notice to Admit, they may at least have had something in their gun besides blanks. Let's put it this way: by neglecting to respond to the Notice to Admit, they made the plaintiff's job easier than it should have been. The whole point in hiring an attorney is to get the best defense possible under the circumstances. That didn't happen here, from the way this decision reads. -- Larry Rogak]
    • David M. Barshay
      Perhaps. My point was that advising carriers to deny a notice to admit, without the qualification that they should first make sure the allegations are untrue,
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 19 2:19 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        Perhaps.  My point was that advising carriers to deny a notice to admit, without the qualification that they should first make sure the allegations are untrue, was a little scary.  Though I’m sure it was unintended.



        [Of course, Dave. I mean, can't we take it for granted that an attorney would never make an assertion that wasn't true? Goes without saying. -- Larry Rogak]
      • David M. Barshay
        Not really. I ve seen NTA responses that deny receipt of the bill, served in the same envelope with a D s NTA demand on the same case that attaches denials.
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 19 2:32 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          Not really.  I’ve seen NTA responses that deny receipt of the bill, served in the same envelope with a D’s NTA demand on the same case that attaches denials.

           



          [In those instances, Dave, I would imagine you would administer a well-deserved judicial ass-whupping. I know I would -- and with relish -- if I were in your position. -- Larry Rogak]
        • lbins123@yahoo.com
          Dave, the bottom line is that Judge Hackling s decision is not in accord with Baja. He had no business making a ruling so contrary to a ruling by an appellate
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 19 3:44 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave, the bottom line is that Judge Hackling's decision is not in accord with Baja. He had no business making a ruling so contrary to a ruling by an appellate court in his own judicial department. His reasoning for not following precedent in his own department is illogical. And Judge Hackling really shows his lack of judicial integrity by citing the Seaside case which was decided before Baja. His decision will get reversed on appeal because its a direct repudiation of Baja and the Dan Medical cases. Otherwise have a great weekend.

            Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


            From: "David M. Barshay" <dbarshay@...>
            Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:05:58 -0500
            To: TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com<TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: RE: The Rogak Report: The Most Useful Publication In The Insurance Claims Industry The Rogak Report: 19 Feb 2010 ** No Fault - Notice To Admit **

             

            The decision says the insurer’s defense was lack of medical necessity, indicating that the defendant could not have truthfully denied the allegations of the notice to admit without subjecting itself to perjury consequences.  Certainly, if the carrier truly did not receive the bill, I agree with you that they should have denied the allegations.  However, that does not appear to be the case here.

             



            [Had Progressive issued a qualified admission (or qualified denial) to the Notice to Admit, they may at least have had something in their gun besides blanks. Let's put it this way: by neglecting to respond to the Notice to Admit, they made the plaintiff's job easier than it should have been. The whole point in hiring an attorney is to get the best defense possible under the circumstances. That didn't happen here, from the way this decision reads. -- Larry Rogak]
          • David M. Barshay
            Mitch, That s nice, but is of no moment to my comments. I didn t say the case was right or wrong, although most know my feelings on the issue. David M.
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 19 3:58 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Mitch,
              That's nice, but is of no moment to my comments. I didn't say the case was right or wrong, although most know my feelings on the issue.

              David M. Barshay, Esq.
              Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock, and Neuwirth, LLC
              150 Herricks Road
              Mineola, New York 11501
              516.741.4799

              On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:51 PM, "lbins123@...<mailto:lbins123@...>" <lbins123@...<mailto:lbins123@...>> wrote:



              Dave, the bottom line is that Judge Hackling's decision is not in accord with Baja. He had no business making a ruling so contrary to a ruling by an appellate court in his own judicial department. His reasoning for not following precedent in his own department is illogical. And Judge Hackling really shows his lack of judicial integrity by citing the Seaside case which was decided before Baja. His decision will get reversed on appeal because its a direct repudiation of Baja and the Dan Medical cases. Otherwise have a great weekend.

              Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

              ________________________________
              From: "David M. Barshay" <dbarshay@...<http://rs.com>>
              Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:05:58 -0500
              To: TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com<TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: RE: The Rogak Report: The Most Useful Publication In The Insurance Claims Industry The Rogak Report: 19 Feb 2010 ** No Fault - Notice To Admit **


              The decision says the insurer’s defense was lack of medical necessity, indicating that the defendant could not have truthfully denied the allegations of the notice to admit without subjecting itself to perjury consequences. Certainly, if the carrier truly did not receive the bill, I agree with you that they should have denied the allegations. However, that does not appear to be the case here.



              [Had Progressive issued a qualified admission (or qualified denial) to the Notice to Admit, they may at least have had something in their gun besides blanks. Let's put it this way: by neglecting to respond to the Notice to Admit, they made the plaintiff's job easier than it should have been. The whole point in hiring an attorney is to get the best defense possible under the circumstances. That didn't happen here, from the way this decision reads. -- Larry Rogak]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.