Case Results
Applican't peer review rebuttal was sufficient to rebut Respondent's peer review doctor
Article 75 petition to vacate master arbitration award granted
Email correspondence was sufficient to prove that EUO no-show denial was improper
EUO scheduling letters found to be defective because they were sent to an incorrect address
IME cut-off denmial rebutted with medical documentation and treating doctor's testimony
IME no-show defense denied because scheduling letters were sent to two different addresses
Insurance carrier was unable to demonstrate proof of EUO no-show and was not given additional time
