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