Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Order reversed without costs and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant MVAIC moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The complaint alleged that the subject claim form was sub

OPINION OF THE COURT Eileen N. Nadelson, J. *564Plaintiff, a medical provider that is seeking first-party benefits pursuant to New York’s No-Fault Insurance Law, has moved for summary judgment based on defendant insurer’s failure to pay or deny plaintiffs claim within the statutory 30-day period following submission of said claim .

Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of N.C., LLC, 2018 NCBC 55. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION BUNCOMBE COUNTY 14 CVS 1783 INSIGHT HEALTH CORP. d/b/a INSIGHT IMAGING, Plaintiff, v. MARQUIS DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC; MARQUIS DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, LLC; JO

Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of N.C., LLC, 2017 NCBC 14. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION BUNCOMBE COUNTY 14 CVS 1783 INSIGHT HEALTH CORP. d/b/a INSIGHT IMAGING, Plaintiff, ORDER AND OPINION ON v.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT INDEPENDENT IMAGING, L.L.C. a/a/o DYLAN MILLER, Appellant, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D21-1113 _______________________________ FLORIDA PAIN RELIEF GROUP, PLLC a/a/o ASHLEY SOTO, Ap

BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 20291) BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. 2020 NY Slip Op 20291 [70 Misc 3d 26] Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts

542 F.Supp.2d 653 (2008) Izza LOPEZ, a/k/a Raul Lopez, Jr., Plaintiff, v. RIVER OAKS IMAGING & DIAGNOSTIC GROUP, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. H-06-3999. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. April 3, 2008. *655 Cole Thaler, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Kenneth D. Upt

OPINION OF THE COURT Michael Gerstein, J. The issue as to which reargument is granted, as to which we find no controlling appellate authority, is whether a no-fault insurer which notices an examination under oath (EUO) of a medical professional provider, as to which the provider timely objects and requests explanation as to the reason for the EUO, is obligated to provide such a reason as a prerequisite to th

REDACTED OPINION AND ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Plaintiff Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. (“Lantheus”) initiated this action against *445Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) on December 16, 2010.- The lawsuit challenges Zurich’s denial of coverage, under a commercial property insurance policy purchased by Lantheu

505 F.Supp.2d 199 (2007) CYTYC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. TRIPATH IMAGING, INC., Defendant. TriPath Imaging, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Cytyc Corporation, Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 03-11142-DPW, 03-12630-DPW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 22, 2007. As Amended August 23, 2007. *200

655 F.3d 461 (2011) Richard CHESBROUGH, MD and Kim Chesbrough, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VPA, P.C., doing business as Visiting Physicians Association, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-1494. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: July 27, 2011. Decided and Filed: August 23, 2011. *464 ARGUED: Danielle C.

OPINION Justice EAKIN. In these consolidated appeals, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue seeks review of the Commonwealth Court’s decisions holding appellees’ MRI1 and PET/CT2 Scan systems were not tangible personal property subject to sales tax under § 7202(a) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971, 72 P.S. § 7101 et se

NAZARIAN, J. The saga before us in this case began in 2005 with an auto accident, but since has snowballed into litigation about litigation. Azizolah Abrishamian appeals a jury’s verdict in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County finding that he breached his contract with appellee Washington Medical Group, P.C. (“WMG”) to pay bills fo

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/29/2017 09:12 AM CDT - 111 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports COHAN v. MEDICAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS Cite as 297 Neb. 111 M ary Cohan

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. IN HOUSE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC., a/a/o DARRYL FRAZIER, Appellee. No. 4D21-2581 [April 26, 2023] Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward Coun

962 A.2d 1076 (2009) 197 N.J. 262 McKESSON CORP., d/b/a McKesson Specialty Distribution Services, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HACKENSACK MEDICAL IMAGING, d/b/a Lifescan Diagnostic Imaging, Defendant-Respondent. A-2 September Term 2008. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued December 2, 2008. Decided January 21, 2009.

FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed without costs, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the court below for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees. In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff established a prima f

Case: 12-16552 Date Filed: 05/02/2014 Page: 1 of 25 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-16552 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cv-02470-WBH GEORGE RUSSELL HENRY,

David J. Hale, United States District Judge In January 2017, the Kentucky General Assembly hastily passed the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, referred to as House Bill 2 (H.B. 2).1 (Docket No. 1-1) Although Kentucky already had a comprehensive informed-consent law pertaining to abortions, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.725, H.B. 2 amended the existing law to require physicians to perform an ultrasound prior to an