What Is Left For You To Recover: PIP Is Still Viable

Personal Injury Protection (PIP) is still a viable source of income for most medical providers. The recent changes to the PIP law have contributed to a dynamic litigation climate. PIP insurers are looking to this new statute to avoid paying claims. However, do not fear, you may still recover what’s rightfully yours so long as you adhere to a strategic plan of action. Below, I will discuss the essential steps to ensure a successful PIP recovery process.

14 Days to Treat

This step in the PIP process is essential. A patient must treat with a medical provider within 14 days of the motor vehicle accident. Case law does not afford any exceptions to this rule. Make sure to include a notation within your medical records indicating that the patient is being seen for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. PIP insurers cannot deny a claim for failure to treat within 14 days if your notes support treatment. Lastly, ask your patient for the name of the initial provider he/she treated with. We can easily obtain medical records to verify if the insurer has a valid 14-day treatment defense.

Note: Do not confuse the 14 days to treat with the Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) requirement. The EMC requirement does not have an arbitrary timetable similar to the 14-day-to-treat mandate.

Material Misrepresentation

Many insurers assert misrepresentation in the insurance application process such as:

  1. The failure to list individuals who reside in your household
  2. Failure to list drivers of the motor vehicle
  3. Failure to indicate that a child over the age of 15 (depends on policy language) is residing in your household

PIP insurers are notorious for asserting material misrepresentation. The three scenarios listed above are the most common for material misrepresentation allegations. The insurer will send a letter in response to your bills indicating that the policy is void due to a failure to disclose certain material information on the insurance application. The insurer will state that a premium check is being refunded to the insured. This action voids the policy. It’s as if the policy never existed.

It is important to tell your patient to hold off on cashing any premium check they receive from the insurer. If your patient disputes the allegations of the material misrepresentation, it is most likely a farce, to begin with. We’ll contact the insurer for you and explain the situation. If the insurer doesn’t relent, we’ll proceed to filing suit. Fear not, there are actually case law holding that cashing the check does not necessarily preclude PIP benefits so long as there is proof that the allegations weren’t true. For example, if a child doesn’t live full-time with a parent, and visits frequently, how can the insurer allege material misrepresentation for failure to disclose that household member? Unfortunately, this happens. However, we have a plan of action to rectify the situation.

Fee Schedule

Insurers continue to incorrectly reimburse you, the provider, despite the new amendments allowing for fee schedule election. An insurer is permitted to pay pursuant to the Medicare Fee schedule as long as they do so in a clear and unambiguous manner. However, many insurers are paying pursuant to the incorrect fee schedule. The new PIP statute requires insurers to pay the greater of the Medicare Fee schedule for the year in which the treatment is rendered and the 2007 Medicare Fee schedule. If the insurer pays the lesser of the two, you have a viable PIP suit. If the insurer pays pursuant to another year altogether, again, a viable PIP suit exists. Do not trust the insurer to properly reimburse you. Medicare coding does not give the insurer the right to pick and choose what year is the most appropriate for reimbursement.

Note: Most insurers’ policies elect the permissive fee schedule. Make sure to look out for Medicare coding such as MPPR, NCCI, OPPS, etc. It’s quite possible that these codes lead to the wrong reimbursement due to the incorrect fee schedule year being applied.

IME Cut-off and Fee Schedule

Florida Statutes Section 627.736(7)(a) governs IMEs. An insurer is permitted to challenge the reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity of your medical treatment. However, many insurers are paying for certain services and refusing to pay others. Insurers will then allege they have reimbursed the provider in full. This scenario requires a lawsuit to be filed. We’ll ensure that your bills are paid. Most IME doctors are quacks who have been doing these peer reviews/IME reviews for years upon years. They will write down whatever the insurer directs them to say. We’ll work to strike their opinions and recoup payment for all services that were subject to the IME “cut-off.”

Important Tip: Continue billing each additional date of service despite the IME cut-off. We’ll include/demand all dates of service in the subsequent PIP suit.

Res Judicata

Res judicata is an ancient Latin term for “a thing adjudicated.” In PIP terms, you cannot dismiss a suit with prejudice and attempt to re-file it again. Once a lawsuit is decided, the same issue cannot be contested again. However, case law is on our side. If we filed a lawsuit and it is dismissed without prejudice, nothing has been decided on the merits. Thus, res judicata wouldn’t preclude us from filing another lawsuit in the same jurisdiction.

What does this mean for you? An illustration of a typical res judicata scenario:

You requested that your attorney dismiss a suit because you weren’t pleased with his/her work. That attorney dismissed it without prejudice. We are permitted to re-file that same suit because a final judgment wasn’t entered in the initial case.

Despite the Legislature’s decision to make our PIP statute more insurance friendly, there are certain loopholes and ways to successfully conduct PIP business. We are your one-stop shop for everything PIP. We provide litigation services, consultations, and overall PIP tutorials on how to properly structure your PIP side of the practice. Contact an experienced PIP litigation group to ensure that you’re reimbursed fully and properly!

It’s easy to get started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

It’s Easy to Get Started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

Premises liability

PREMISE LIABILITY

$450,000

James was searching for equipment for painting at Home Depot. In the aisle next to him, there was a worker on a lift stocking the highest shelf. The worker pushed boxes so far across the shelf that they fell off the other edge and hit James in the head. The force almost knocked James unconscious. He sat down and the loud bang got the worker off the ladder to see what fell. When they saw James they offered him a bucket and made a report. James did not recall leaving the store or how he got home. He did not recall much except being at home depot and getting hit in the head. Home Depot told him that it was a small box of dust masks that hurt him. We discovered it was actually a large box of emergency kits that fell off the shelf.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$850,000

In this case, our client slipped and fell on water that had accumulated near the hot tubs/showers on the Lido deck of a major cruise line ship. The client suffered torn ligaments to her shoulder that required 2 arthroscopic surgeries. The cruise line took the position that the condition on the floor was open and obvious.

Premises liability

PREMISES LIABILITY

$980,000

Georgia was visiting a friend in the hospital when she walked out of the elevator and into her friend’s room. As soon as she entered the room she slipped on a newly mopped floor without any wet floor sign present. The floor was so wet that Georgia’s entire outfit was soaked. Because of the muted tile floor, the water was invisible. Georgia needed a back operation which was unsuccessful and caused her to slip into a coma. She luckily survived.

Motor vehicle accident

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

$1.1 MILLION

AUTOMOBILE REAR END COLLISION

Rodrigo was driving his work truck home when he was rear-ended at a stoplight. Rodrigo needed a fusion of his thoracic spine. A terrible and complex operation. Unfortunately, while Rodrigo was undergoing the spinal operation, one of his children died and he was unable to be with his grieving wife. It was a tragic case that eventually settled.

Bicycle vs car accident

BICYCLE VS CAR ACCIDENT

$1.45 MILLION

David was a teacher at a local high school. He rode his bike to school in the morning and after school would ride another 10 miles for exercise. On a sunny afternoon on his way home an older driver turned right into him as he was riding down the street. He hurt his shoulder and neck and needed two operations. Defendant felt his injury was due to playing football 10 years earlier and would not provide him a fair or reasonable offer.

Car vs commercial truck accident

CAR VS COMMERCIAL TRUCK ACCIDENT

$3.4 MILLION

Joe was driving his 18 wheeler on the Florida Turnpike headed south after a long-haul run.  He was “bobtailing” which means he did not have a cargo trailer on the back of his truck rig.  A drunk driver lost control of his car causing Joe to avoid the accident but drive off the highway and into a canal.  He was injured in the accident but also witnessed a child die when he climbed out of the truck and came to the accident site.  There the injured child was trapped under the car and he was powerless to save the child before it passed.

Auto accident T-Bone

AUTO ACCIDENT T-BONE

$4.5 MILLION

Xao, a Vietnamese immigrant was driving home after work at night to see his pregnant wife. He stopped at a 4-way intersection and looked both ways. He did not see anyone in either direction. As Mr. X when through the intersection he was hit on the passenger side door by a mid-sized black SUV driving without their lights on. Mr. X was catastrophically injured.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$8.2 MILLION

This was a hard-fought pedestrian accident case, in which our client was struck by an SUV driven by a teen driver, as they attempted to cross North Military Trail in West Palm Beach, FL. As a result of the accident, our client suffered numerous fractures, partial loss of vision and frontal lobe brain injury that affected his speech, and other personal injuries that required him to be hospitalized for 58 days.

At the time of the accident, our client was a cashier at Walmart and has been unable to return to work.

“This case is the epitome of what we consider part of our Core Culture and broad vision – which is to be Warriors for Justice,” stated Brian LaBovick. “Mr. Jacobus has serious permanent injuries and will continue to fight to regain his life into the foreseeable future. This verdict will allow him to get the professional help he needs to safely navigate the rest of his life.”

Medical malpractice

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

$15 MILLION

Brain damages child due to medical negligence.  Mother was misdiagnosed upon entry to the hospital while under contractions.  The child was born severely disabled.