Did New York Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 202.8 et seq. create a toll or suspension of prescribed procedural limitations periods? On February 21, 2021, this New York Court of Claims judge, after chiding the New York Attorney General's Office for ...

Here is your weekly Coverage Counsel update for you. Click here to start your FREE subscription

If you are unable to open any of the 'Read the whole entry' links below, please go directly to the Coverage Counsel blog by clicking its banner above. 

Thank you for subscribing!  If you are receiving this email to confirm your subscription, please click the 'Click here to activate your service' link below.  If you know others who may benefit from subscribing to this blog, please forward this email to them and have them click here

Roy Mura


Coverage Counsel - 5 new articles

Toll or Suspension? New York Court of Claims Judge Says Toll.

Did New York Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 202.8 et seq. create a toll or suspension of prescribed procedural limitations periods?

On February 21, 2021, this New York Court of Claims judge, after chiding the New York Attorney General's Office for having "inexplicably failed to advise the court of Executive Order 202.8 and then, once raised by [the pro se] claimant, neglected to address it's impact here," said toll:

Executive Order 202.8, as noted, provides for a toll, as do Executive Order 202.67 and Executive Order 202.72, the last two executive orders addressed to time limits for the commencement, filing or service of a legal action. Thus, it is clear that a toll, and not a suspension, was intended and the question becomes whether the statute authorizes a toll. The primary consideration in the construction of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 92). The legislative intent is to be ascertained from the words and language used and the statutory language is generally construed according to its natural and most obvious sense without resorting to an artificial or forced construction....

Read the whole entry »

      
 


Same and Different

Same PLLC.
Same TIN.
Same space (real and virtual).
Same domain.
Same practice areas.
Same motto (We take our jobs seriously, not ourselves.).
Same attitude.
Same knowledge.
Same commitment.
Same service.
Same lawyers and staff, but one.
Different name and logo.

Looking ever forward to continued and new opportunities to serve.



      
 


We're Hiring!

Come work at a place where we take our jobs seriously, not ourselves. Immediate opening.


QR this, or click here.


      
 


So When Can I Close My File? Calculating New York's COVID-19 Toll

A claim handling client asked me today on what date the statute of limitations for a third-party personal injury claim that would have expired on July 11, 2020 if New York's COVID-19 toll (if it was a toll and not a suspension--see my previous posts on this blog) had not been put in place now expires?

The answer can be found on Slide 33 of my November 3, 2020 presentation:


So the answer is? February 25, 2021.

  • The number of days from March 20, 2020 to and including July 11, 2020 is 114.
  • 114 days after November 3, 2020 is February 25, 2021.
Easy peasy. Something else you can be thankful for tomorrow.

Stay safe and well, everyone, and have a happy (if socially distant) Thanksgiving.

P.S. I used two websites/services to make these calculations:

      
 


$481.30 Awarded on a $62,830.97 No-Fault Claim -- Coronary Bypass Surgery and Related Hospital Services Found Unrelated to the MVA

NO-FAULT – CAUSATION – CORONARY BYPASS SURGERY AAA ARBITRATION DECISION

Matter of United Health Services Hospital aao JK and Preferred Mutual Ins. Co.
(AAA Case No. 17-18-1089-4199, issued 11/23/2020)

78-year old man passes out driving and crashes. At the hospital, he is found to have suffered a myocardial infarction and severe coronary artery disease. Eight days, one coronary bypass surgery and $62,830.97 later, he goes home. A few weeks later, the hospital bills the man's no-fault insurer, Preferred Mutual, for the cost of the heart surgery and related services. Preferred Mutual obtains a cardiologist's peer review opinion and denies payment. Approximately four years and 100% in interest later, the hospital demands AAA arbitration of the denial.

After a hearing, AAA Arbitrator Fred Lutzen concluded:
After reviewing the entire peer review and the submitted records, I find the peer provides a satisfactory medical rationale and relies on the facts present, so that Respondent has met its burden and proven, prima facie, that the hospital services and surgery related to his heart condition were unrelated to the motor vehicle accident.
The...

Read the whole entry »

      
 


More Recent Articles



Safely Unsubscribe ArchivesPreferencesContactSubscribePrivacy