The New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) requires the filing of a Mandatory Provider Compliance Certification on or before December 31, 2009 of each year. For your reference, we have set forth below the relevant portions from the OMIG website related to the Mandatory Provider Compliance Law.

The Mandatory Compliance Law

It has been almost exactly five years since the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela,[1] establishing that a violation of a licensing requirement by a medical provider renders the provider ineligible to be reimbursed by an insurance company for no fault[2] claims that have

Paul Majkowski co-authored an American Bar Association article, “Using Statistical Analysis in Mass Toxic Tort Cases: Are the Courts a Century Behind Science.”

Click here to read.

Published in Mass Torts, Volume 7, Number 1, Fall/Winter 2009. © 2008 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion

When a company is scammed, who pays the insurance?

Insurance coverage case law sometimes reads like a supermarket tabloid, and no case has more tabloid-like facts than the October 2005, decision in Federal Insurance Co. vs. Ace Property and Casualty Co., a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Finding That Plaintiff Is No Longer Disabled Is Affirmed, Despite Social Security Administration Determination That Plaintiff Was Disabled

Robert Muller appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York that denied his claim that the termination of his employer-sponsored disability benefits by First Unum Life Insurance Company

An employee of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., brought suit against the fiduciaries of the company’s 401(k) retirement plan. He asserted that they had acted imprudently when they liquidated two of the plan’s investment funds at a loss. The defendants argued that the employee had failed to state

The plaintiffs in this case were employed in a division of SKF USA, Inc., when SKF sold the division to Tyson Bearing Company. The plaintiffs became employees of Tyson immediately after the sale at the same facility and did not suffer any period of unemployment or interruption of wages. Under the terms of the sale,