David M Barshay

February 09, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his No-Fault Insurance Wrap-Up, David M. Barshay, a member of Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, reviews recent cases involving whether checking the "fees not in accordance with fee schedules" box on a denial of claim form is specific enough to preserve a fee schedule defense, the delivery of billed-for but not delivered medical supplies, and the impact of one provider's forum selection on another provider in dealing with the same patient.

By David M. Barshay

10 minute read

September 30, 2009 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and David M. Gottlieb, an associate with the firm, discuss recent cases, including a question over the interaction of FRCP 23 and CPLR §901(b) that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, a case over a staged accident, and two assignment cases, one where the court held that an assignment on behalf of Dr. Albert Davydov, DDS, P.C., rather than the plaintiff Dr. Albert Davydov, DDS, is of no consequence, and another where the plaintiff had previously assigned her rights to her providers.

By David M. Barshay and David M. Gottlieb

15 minute read

January 23, 2009 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and David M. Gottlieb, an associate with the firm, write that the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that a class action challenging GEICO's "[systematic reduction of] reimbursement for medical equipment and supplies," can be certified as a class action, but not with its current class representative.

By David M. Barshay and David M. Gottlieb

16 minute read

June 10, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their No-Fault Insurance Wrap-Up column, David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and David M. Gottlieb, an associate with the firm, review - among other rulings - a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

By David M. Barshay and David M. Gottlieb

11 minute read

April 29, 2009 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and David M. Gottlieb, an associate with the firm, write: The Court of Appeals' much-anticipated decision in LMK Psychological Services, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. was handed down April 2, 2009. As practitioners in this area of law are well-aware, LMK concerned a dispute as to how interest and attorney's fees are calculated after a claimant's successful prosecution of a lawsuit or arbitration for the recovery of no-fault insurance benefits. Given that it is probably the most significant case concerning no-fault law in more than 10 years, a detailed examination of the case and its holdings, as well as the lower court opinions in which the issues addressed in LMK initially surfaced, is warranted.

By David M. Barshay and David M. Gottlieb

18 minute read

November 09, 2007 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and Mitchell S. Lustig, an attorney associated with Nicolini, Paradise Ferretti & Sabella, write that in a landmark decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department, directly addressed the admissibility of insurance investigation reports and testimony concerning such reports under the business record exception to the hearsay rule.

By David M. Barshay and Mitchell S. Lustig

14 minute read

August 12, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his No-Fault Insurance Wrap-Up column, David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, reviews recent developments of interest, including two cases that illustrate the importance of assuring trial stipulations and submissions of agreed upon facts are detailed, complete, and unambiguously set forth the entire agreement of the parties.

By David M. Barshay

12 minute read

January 31, 2008 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and Mitchell S. Lustig, an attorney associated with Nicolini, Paradise Ferretti & Sabella, review recent opinions that suggest no-fault insurers may wish to re-examine the traditional function of the peer review, indicate the Second Department's Appellate Term may be departing from previous decisions, and end a controversy over how attorney's fees are to be awarded in cases where the medical provider prevailed.

By David M. Barshay and Mitchell S. Lustig

12 minute read

December 08, 2005 | New York Law Journal

David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, and Michael C. Rosenberger, an associate at the firm, ask: To sever or not to sever? That, they say, is the unanswered question, following the recent decisions of the appellate courts, which have ultimately resulted in a profound chilling effect on a lower court's ostensibly broad judicial discretion.

By David M. Barshay and Michael C. Rosenberger

11 minute read

December 09, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his No-Fault Insurance Wrap-Up, David M. Barshay, a partner at Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock and Neuwirth, reviews recent cases involving acupuncture reimbursement, the date of breach for starting the statute of limitation clock, restoration of a case to the trial calendar when a settlement is not finalized, and the importance of choosing the correct evidentiary vehicle to rebut an insurer's doctor's opinion.

By David M. Barshay

10 minute read