Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

The Issue with Time | Callagy Law

The following article was written by Callagy Law’s Legal Team, and will focus on many common questions and concerns surrounding new developments, legal matters, and other procedures within the field of healthcare law Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance. Our mission is to answer any questions and give knowledge to many different aspects of these matters.



 


In 2012, N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 was amended to give the Workers Compensation Court exclusive jurisdiction over medical provider claims. Prior to 2012, it was clear that the statute of limitations for a medical provider’s claim was the six-year time period /  statute set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, which applies to all actions of a contractual nature, express or implied, and all actions to recover on an account. Although it is unclear whether a two-year statute of limitation applies to medical provider claims filed in a time after 2012, medical provider claims arising from events prior to the establishment of exclusive jurisdiction should carry a six-year period. The Appellate Division clearly held that the six-year time period applied to the medical provider’s claim in Medical Diagnostic Assocs. v. Hawryluk, 317 N.J. Super. 338, 349 (App. Div. 1998), certif. denied, 160 N.J. 89 (1999), stating:


Finally, we deem it appropriate to discuss the statute of limitations issue in the event the Division determines that the employee’s claim is    not compensable. Plaintiff asserts that if medical providers are not allowed to bring suit in the Law Division, there is the potential that their claims will be barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is six years. See N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. We note that there is  no statutory provision tolling the statute of limitations on the medical      provider’s claim while an employee’s claim is pending in the Division. We are satisfied, however, that if a medical provider’s suit is        transferred to the Division, as we hold today, the complaint will have been timely filed. In future cases in which the medical provider proceeds directly in the Division the statute of limitations will be tolled during the period that the matter is pending in the Division. Ibid. (emphasis added)


In Hawryluk, the Appellate Division transferred the medical provider’s claim to the Division and held that the statute of limitations for the claim was six years.  In Univ. of Mass. Mem’l Med. Ctr. v. Christodoulou, 180 N.J. 334, 345 (2004), the Supreme Court overruled Hawryluk on the necessity of transferring the medical provider’s claim to the Division for a judgment of non-compensability before a Superior Court action could be filed, but did not alter its holding with respect to the statute of limitations. Although the Legislature subsequently amended N.J.S.A 34:15-15 to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Division for medical provider claims, eliminating the Superior Court option, there is no reason to suggest that the Legislature also intended to change the statute of limitations. The statute remains six years, as it does in all collection cases of a contractual or quasi-contractual nature.


A two-year statute would unfairly prejudice medical providers who rendered services to injured employees and were entitled to rely on the six-year statute / time period in managing collection activity on their unpaid accounts.  It would deprive medical providers of their property interests without any basis in a duly enacted statute.   It would also unjustly enrich insurance carriers who collected premiums to pay for patients’ medical bills, then deliberately underpay for services rendered to those patients.



 


We hope you have found this information helpful and interesting. Please reach out to us here with any questions or comments regarding healthcare legal matters, or if you are a medical provider that has questions regarding Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance.. Feel free to search us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube.



 


Learn More About Callagy Law Here:


Avvo


Blog


Facebook


YouTube


Pinterest


Indeed


Yelp


LawNearMe


Wikipedia


Website


 


 



The Issue with Time | Callagy Law #CallagyLaw, #Court, #Courts, #Statutes, #WorkersCompensation, #WorkersCompensationCourts, #WorkersCompensationCourtsNj

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Don’t Let Your Claims Expire: Statute of Limitations on Workers Compensation Medical Provider Claims

The following article was written by Callagy Law’s Legal Team, and will focus on many common questions and concerns surrounding new developments, legal matters, and other procedures within the field of healthcare law Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance. Our mission is to answer any questions and give knowledge to many different aspects of these matters.


 


In 2012, N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 was amended to give the Workers Compensation Court exclusive jurisdiction over medical provider claims. Prior to 2012, it was clear that the statute of limitations for a medical provider’s claim was the six-year statute set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, which applies to all actions of a contractual nature, express or implied, and all actions to recover on an account. Although it is unclear whether a two-year statute of limitation applies to medical provider claims filed after 2012, medical provider claims arising from events prior to the establishment of exclusive jurisdiction should carry a six-year period. The Appellate Division clearly held that the six-year period applied to the medical provider’s claim in Medical Diagnostic Assocs. v. Hawryluk, 317 N.J. Super. 338, 349 (App. Div. 1998), certif. denied, 160 N.J. 89 (1999), stating:


 


Finally, we deem it appropriate to discuss the statute of limitations issue in the event the Division determines that the employee’s claim is    not compensable. Plaintiff asserts that if medical providers are not allowed to bring suit in the Law Division, there is the potential that their claims will be barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is six years. See N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. We note that there is  no statutory provision tolling the statute of limitations on the medical      provider’s claim while an employee’s claim is pending in the Division. We are satisfied, however, that if a medical provider’s suit is        transferred to the Division, as we hold today, the complaint will have been timely filed. In future cases in which the medical provider proceeds directly in the Division the statute of limitations will be tolled during the period that the matter is pending in the Division. Ibid. (emphasis added)


 


 


In Hawryluk, the Appellate Division transferred the medical provider’s claim to the Division and held that the statute of limitations for the claim was six years.  In Univ. of Mass. Mem’l Med. Ctr. v. Christodoulou, 180 N.J. 334, 345 (2004), the Supreme Court overruled Hawryluk on the necessity of transferring the medical provider’s claim to the Division for a judgment of non-compensability before a Superior Court action could be filed, but did not alter its holding with respect to the statute of limitations. Although the Legislature subsequently amended N.J.S.A 34:15-15 to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Division for medical provider claims, eliminating the Superior Court option, there is no reason to suggest that the Legislature also intended to change the statute of limitations. The statute remains six years, as it does in all collection cases of a contractual or quasi-contractual nature.


 


A two-year statute would unfairly prejudice medical providers who rendered services to injured employees and were entitled to rely on the six-year statute in managing collection activity on their unpaid accounts.  It would deprive medical providers of their property interests without any basis in a duly enacted statute.   It would also unjustly enrich insurance carriers who collected premiums to pay for patients’ medical bills, then deliberately underpay for services rendered to those patients.


 


We hope you found the information provided in this article helpful to various questions you may have had concerning the healthcare industry. For information pertaining to our services for medical providers, please click here. Please note, Callagy Law has recovered over $175,000,000 for medical providers, and that number grows daily. Please free to reach out to Sean Callagy of Callagy Law at any time for questions you may have concerning personal and business matters. Callagy Law offices are located conveniently in Paramus, NJ. Beyond the scope of information, Sean Callagy has developed multiple areas of our healthcare legal practice and business coaching. Feel free to connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally Callagy Law has some great reviews and is working hard to be a leader in multiple fields of the legal profession.


Learn More About Callagy Law Here:


Avvo


Facebook


YouTube


Pinterest


Indeed


Yelp


LawNearMe



Don’t Let Your Claims Expire: Statute of Limitations on Workers Compensation Medical Provider Claims #Court, #MedicalProviderClaims, #Wc, #WorkersComp

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Callagy Law Persuades the Third Circuit to Set Precedent in ERISA Cases

For Immediate Release:


Contact: Alissa F. Imperatore


Media Contact


201.261.1700 Ext. 181


aimperatore@callagylaw.com


www.callagylaw.com


 


For Immediate Release


 


Paramus, NJ – August 27, 2015


 


Callagy Law Persuades the Third Circuit to Set Precedent in ERISA Cases


In a precedent-setting victory, Callagy Law successfully argued that an ERISA plan administrator’s failure strictly to comply with a certain Department of Labor regulation results in annulling the plan’s contractual limitation on the period in which to bring a law suit in Federal Court.


Our client’s case was initially dismissed for filing his complaint after the plan’s one-year contractual limitation had run. But Callagy Law Counsel Matthew R. Major, Esq., persuaded the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(g)(1)(iv), a Department of Labor regulation governing the ERISA claims procedure process, “requires plan administrators to inform claimants of plan-imposed time limits for bringing civil actions in their adverse benefit determinations.” Clear and plain notice of the contractual time limit is necessary, Mr. Major argued, to effectuate ERISA’s remedial purpose in providing claimants with effective judicial review of such determinations.


Adopting  Mr. Major’s reasoning, the Third Circuit held, for the first time ever in this Circuit, that plan administrators must include such notice in adverse benefit determination letters “and that the appropriate remedy” for failing to do so “is to set aside the plan’s time limit and apply the limitations period from the most analogous state-law cause of action—here, New Jersey’s six-year deadline for breach of contract claims.”


For our client, that means his suit will now be able to go forward on its merits. For all future ERISA clients within the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey— that means that plan administrators can no longer “hide the ball and obstruct access to the courts.”


That’s a victory for everyone.


For a copy of the court’s opinion, please visit: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/133535p.pdf


With offices in New York, New Jersey, and Arizona, Callagy Law is a multi-faceted law firm committed to providing legal representation and advice to individuals, medical providers, and business owners.  For a full list of the firm’s practice areas, please click here. At Callagy Law, we are “Fundamentally changing the way people feel about lawyers, one client at a time.”


For more information about Callagy Law, visit our Website, Facebook, and Twitter.


Media Contact:


Alissa F. Imperatore


Callagy Law, PC


aimperatore@callagylaw.com


201.261.1700 Ext. 181


 


###



Callagy Law Persuades the Third Circuit to Set Precedent in ERISA Cases #CommercialInsurance, #CommercialLitigatiokn, #Court, #Litigation, #ThirdCircuit, #Victory