Callagy Law Arizona: pip litigation

Showing posts with label pip litigation. Show all posts

Monday, May 23, 2016

Navigating The “Health Care Primary” Option in PIP Claims

The purpose of this post is to help assist those with questions they have concerning their business or medical practice. The Callagy Law team is knowledgeable in many law practice areas and will frequently post topics ranging from Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance. We hope to have this blog shed a light on many common questions.

As a PIP litigation attorney, I frequently find myself explaining what PIP is to individuals who are not familiar with this area of practice. I generally explain it by stating that injuries sustained in auto accidents are covered by auto insurance in the state of New Jersey and I represent health care providers in cases where the auto carrier denies payment. A follow-up question I sometimes receive is, “why aren’t those injuries covered by health insurance?”

The answer to this question is simple, except when it isn’t. (I kid.) New Jersey mandates that all auto insurance policies cover a minimum of $15,000 of PIP coverage. Typically, the auto insurer is the primary payor of injuries sustained in an auto accident under this PIP requirement. Thus, in such cases, it is the auto insurer that is primarily liable and not the patient’s health insurer.

However, there is an exception to the default system which is called “health care primary.” This refers to instances where the insured, in selecting her auto coverage, opts for the “health care primary” option. Essentially, in selecting this option, the insured is committing to utilize health insurance as the primary payor of injuries sustained in auto accidents in exchange for a lower auto insurance premium. In such cases, the patient’s auto insurance serves as a secondary payor rather than as the primary payor.

Health care primary policies can put a wrinkle in health care providers’ standard billing practices for PIP cases and it is worthwhile to understand how to navigate this situation. If a provider treats a car accident victim with a “health care primary” auto policy, the provider should first bill the patient’s health insurer. (If the provider mistakenly bills the auto insurer first, the auto insurer will likely deny the claim and the provider can simply bill the health insurer thereafter.)

The question then becomes, what happens if the patient’s health insurer denies the claim? The good news here is that the provider can often bill the patient’s auto policy following such a denial since the PIP provision of the policy continues to act as secondary coverage.

While there is some ambiguity on this issue, many interpret the law in a way that requires the patient’s health insurer to issue a substantive denial in order for PIP to be triggered as secondary coverage.

For example, if the health insurer denies the claim because the treatment is not covered under the patient’s policy, this would serve as a substantive denial and the provider would then be free to bill the patient’s auto insurer. However, if the health insurer denies the claim stating that more documentation is needed to process the claim, this will likely not be regarded as a substantive denial and the provider would be wise to resubmit the claim to the health insurer with the requested documentation prior to attempting to bill the patient’s auto carrier.

One final note to be mindful of is, when billing the auto carrier following a health insurance denial, be sure to include the health insurance EOBs. This will signal to the auto carrier that, even though the claim involves a health care primary policy, the patient’s health insurer was already billed but the claim was denied.

We hope you found the information provided in this article helpful to various questions you may have had concerning the healthcare industry. For information pertaining to our services for medical providers, please click here. Please note, Callagy Law has recovered over $200,000,000 for medical providers, and that number grows daily. Our team of knowledgeable PIP Arbitration attorneys are ready to help you. Please free to reach out to Sean Callagy of Callagy Law at any time for questions you may have concerning personal and business matters. Callagy Law offices are located conveniently in Paramus, NJ. Beyond the scope of information, Sean Callagy has developed multiple areas of our healthcare legal practice and business coaching. Feel free to connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube.

Learn More About Callagy Law Here:

Navigating The “Health Care Primary” Option in PIP Claims

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Facility Fees vs. Physician’s Fees

The purpose of this post is to help assist healthcare providers and the public with questions they have concerning topics related to Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance.. The Callagy Law team is knowledgeable in all aspects of these sorts of legal matters and will frequently post topics in this field. We hope to have this article shine a light on many common questions.

In the heavily regulated world of PIP (personal injury protection), it is important to distinguish between facility fees and physician’s fees, to ensure that, as a medical provider, you are receiving the appropriate form of reimbursement.

In New Jersey, auto insurers are required to provide a minimum of $15,000 in PIP coverage to everyone they insure. In practice, the amount tends to be much higher as the default option for PIP coverage is typically $250,000. To guard against endless PIP claims leading to ever increasing insurance premiums, the Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) promulgates fee schedules which essentially cap the amount of reimbursement providers can receive for the treatment they perform.

What is important to be mindful of is that there are many different kinds of healthcare providers and, in recognizing this concept, DOBI has set forth various different fee schedule rates.

The simplest example of different providers receiving different amounts of reimbursement for the same treatment performed is a physician versus a facility. It is somewhat intuitive that a facility charge is distinct from a physician charge and the fee schedules put forth by DOBI take this into account.

What further confuses this issue is the fact that, even within the category of facility charges, there are several different types of facilities. This too is accounted for by DOBI which distinguishes between various types of facilities.

For the most part, a facility charging a fee for medical services that it hosted, fits into one of three categories: a hospital, an ambulatory surgical center (ASC), or “other” (pretty much anything else).

The fee schedule rates for these various charges can be found on the DOBI website using the following link: http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/pipinfo/aicrapg.htm. Exhibit 1 contains a column titled “physician’s fees” and a separate column titled “ASC fees.” Thus, it is pretty simple to search and find the proper reimbursement for a physician charge or an ASC facility charge.

With respect to the “other” facility category previously mentioned, meaning facilities that are neither an ASC nor a hospital, the facility fees can also be found in Exhibit 1- they are listed in the physician’s fee column but they include the TC modifier (technical component). So, for example, let’s say a patient undergoes an X-ray of the jaw which is billed under CPT Code 70100. The “physician’s fee column” lists this CPT Code twice- once with the 26 modifier and once with the TC modifier. (To be complete, it also lists it a third time without any modifier which represents a global fee but that is beyond the scope of this article.) Assuming the CPT Code is being billed twice, once by a physician and once by a facility, the physician would bill with the 26 modifier and receive the corresponding fee schedule reimbursement, while the facility would bill with the TC modifier and receive payment accordingly.

Finally, we get to hospitals which are truly a category of their own. Hospitals have their own fee schedule known as the Hospital Outpatient Surgical Facility or HOSF fee schedule. (This fee schedule can be also be found using the link posted earlier.) However, the HOSF fee schedule, as the name indicates, is really only applicable to cases of outpatient surgery. Thus, if the previously cited example of a patient undergoing an X-ray took place in a hospital, the hospital would not be reimbursed for the X-ray pursuant to the HOSF unless the exam was in connection with outpatient surgery (such as pre-op testing).

So how is a hospital to be reimbursed for facility fees that are not associated with outpatient surgery? Callagy Law takes the position that hospitals are not subject to any fee schedule for (non-surgical) treatment provided to hospital outpatients. Such charges are subject to the hospital’s usual and customary rate. Insurance carriers tend to be in acknowledgment of this in the way that they reimburse emergency room visits, typically billed under one of the 9928X treatment codes. However, when it comes to other hospital treatment such as diagnostic testing, even when performed in conjunction with emergency room encounters, carriers tend to apply the TC rate of the physician’s fee schedule referred to earlier. Callagy Law has had an enormous amount of success in arbitration reversing these applications of the TC rate which are inapplicable to hospital outpatients.

It is important to remember that an insurance carrier’s determination as to how a claim should be paid is not necessarily correct. If you suspect that a claim was not paid correctly, or you simply are uncertain, be sure to reach out to Callagy Law, PC.

We hope you found the information provided in this article helpful to various questions you may have had concerning the healthcare industry. For information pertaining to our services for medical providers, please click here. Please note, Callagy Law has recovered over $185,000,000 for medical providers, and that number grows daily. Please free to reach out to Sean Callagy of Callagy Law at any time for questions you may have concerning personal and business matters. Callagy Law offices are located conveniently in Paramus, NJ. Beyond the scope of information, Sean Callagy has developed multiple areas of our healthcare legal practice and business coaching. Feel free to connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube.

Learn More About Callagy Law Here:

Facility Fees vs. Physician’s Fees

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Insurance Carriers and Adequate Notice of In-Network Provisions

The purpose of this post is to help assist those with questions they have concerning their business or medical practice. The Callagy Law team is knowledgeable in many law practice areas and will frequently post topics ranging from Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance. We hope to have this blog shed a light on many common questions.

Insurance Carriers must provide adequate notice of their In-Network provisions

Many insurance companies Decision Point Review plans require that a patient present to specific providers (“in network”) for certain services (ie. surgery centers, diagnostic imaging, etc.) The insurance carriers are permitted to assess an additional 30% out of network co-payment penalty if those types of services are performed at an out of network facility.

However, a 30% vendor penalty cannot be applied where proper notice was not given to the patient that he/she was to obtain services through a designated vendor, and if the specific names and contact information for the providers were not provided to the patient, as same would be in violation of N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)(2).

N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)(2) dictates:

Upon receipt of a request for PIP benefits under the policy, the insurer or its PIP vendor shall make available to the insured and the treating medical provider information about approved networks and providers in the network, including addresses and telephone numbers.

That statute informs the carriers of the procedures they must follow in order to properly asses the penalty.

First, Respondent must provide proof that its DPRP was provided to the patient. As it is within a carrier’s Decision Point Review Plan (“DPRP”) that the 30% out-of-network penalty is discussed, outlining the guidelines that must be followed in order to avoid this penalty. Without having submitted proof that the DPRP and notice of the network provisions thereof were provided to the patient, there is no proof that the patient was aware he/she would even be penalized.

In arbitration many DRPs have ruled on these issues. DRP Fabiano discussed this is a NAF award where he held, “By not providing notice and information regarding the existence of and use of the voluntary networks to the insured, I find that the respondent has failed to comply with 11:3-4.8(c)(2).” (See, NJ-1223979)

DRP Patriaco also held that where the insurance carrier did not provide sufficient evidence that the DPRP was provided to the patient and treating physician pursuant to N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.7, the provider was not required to follow the provisions of the DPRP, to prevent penalty. (See, NJ-268557) The aforementioned matter involved whether or not Claimant was required to follow provisions regarding appeals, however, this is easily translatable to the issue of a DPRP regarding vendors. Therefore, without proper notice of the out-of-network penalty, Claimant’s fees cannot be reduced by the penalty amount.

In addition to failing to notify the patient and/or provider, the carriers must also prove that the information they submitted complied with the statute which requires addresses and telephone numbers relative to its approved networks and providers.

If the Respondent’s DPRP only references a telephone number to call, and that number does not reference a list of specific in network providers and their contact information, or at the very least contain a voice prompt providing access to this information, the insurance company has not satisfied the requirements of N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)(2), and accordingly, the 30% penalty would be improper.

In another arbitration award, DRP Mundy found that Respondent’s “DPRP fails to show how the insured or treating medical provider can contact the approved network providers.” (NJ-1461388) DRP Mundy authored another award finding:

DPRP is not in compliance with N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)2 in that it fails to “make available…information about approved networks and providers in the network, including addresses and telephone numbers.” Simply providing a phone number with no direct information regarding the approved networks is not enough to satisfy this requirement.

(See NJ-1491724)

DRP Amendola also found in Claimant’s favor in a case where the letter sent to the patient did not contain all of the statutorily required information, stating:

Missing from the July 6, 2012 letter to the patient is the contact information for the approved networks. N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8 (c) (2) states that the in network provider information must be made available to the insured and the treating doctor. Even if I were to find that the July 6, 2012 letter was sent to the patient, the letter did not include the information required by the administrative code. Proper notice, with the required information to the patient, is crucial since it is the patient ultimately responsible for payment of the penalty.

(emphasis not added)

(see NJ-1482248)

Finally, in the event that the insurance carrier initially failed to provide proper notice in their DPRP, but later sent a notice to the patient very close in time to the procedures some DRPs have found that to be insufficient.

For example, a notice sent a mere three days before the treatment was scheduled would most likely be deemed as sent to too late in time to provide sufficient notice under N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)(2). Even if such a letter was received by patient prior to the services scheduled, practically speaking, it would be too late for the patient to change the location of an already scheduled procedure. Additionally, the patient might have potentially taken off work, and would maybe even arranged for someone to watch their children. Therefore, even if a patient received the notice letter three days before their appointment, the notice provision of N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.8(c)(2) would be thwarted because the insurance carrier sent this information so far into the process. It should have been provided up front in the DPRP. DRP Ganzhorn ruled in favor of the Claimant in this exact situation in NJ0703000951217, where she found that an out-of-network penalty did not apply when notification letter was dated three days prior to date of service.

Callagy Law has been extremely successful in obtaining recovery for improperly assessed out of network penalties to our clients based on the above arguments. If your billing has been reduced due to out of network penalties, contact Callagy law for help in obtaining reimbursement.

We hope you found the information provided in this article helpful to various questions you may have had concerning the healthcare industry. For information pertaining to our services for medical providers, please click here. Please note, Callagy Law has recovered over $185,000,000 for medical providers, and that number grows daily. Please free to reach out to Sean Callagy of Callagy Law at any time for questions you may have concerning personal and business matters. Callagy Law offices are located conveniently in Paramus, NJ. Beyond the scope of information, Sean Callagy has developed multiple areas of our healthcare legal practice and business coaching. Feel free to connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube.

Learn More About Callagy Law Here:

Insurance Carriers and Adequate Notice of In-Network Provisions

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Failure to Cooperate – IME No Show | Callagy Law

The purpose of this post is to help assist healthcare providers and the public with questions they have concerning topics related to Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance.. The Callagy Law team is knowledgeable in all aspects of these sorts of legal matters and will frequently post topics in this field. We hope to have this article shine a light on many common questions.

There are many times when a provider will receive a notification from the patient’s insurance company notifying them that benefits are terminated due to the patient’s failure to appear for a scheduled Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) appointment. Insurance companies, patient and providers alike have to adhere to N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.7 in regards to the scheduling of an IME however, and however should know that there are several defenses available that will negate the carrier’s denials.

No notice to provider of carrier’s plan provisions regarding IME attendance

The carrier may allege that the patient and the provider were notified of the obligation to appear for an IME via its Decision Point Review Plan (“DPRP”). (Read more about DPRP’s in thei blog post). There is a legal requirement, however, that the carrier must show that the DPRP was in fact sent to the patient and the provider by submitting letters addressed to each. N.J.A.C. §11:3-4.7(c) provides in pertinent part: “(c) A decision point review plan filing shall include the following information: [ . . . ] 3. Copies of the informational materials described in (d) below and an explanation of how the insurer will distribute information to policyholders, injured persons and providers at policy issuance, renewal and upon notification of claim” (emphasis added).

If an insurance company cannot prove that these letters were sent, the denial of benefits based on an alleged failure to cooperate will be overcome.

No proof of delivery of IME Scheduling Notices

N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.7(e)(7), provides the following, “Insurers may include in their decision point review plan a procedure for the denial or reimbursement for treatment, diagnostic testing or durable medical equipment after repeated unexcused failure to attend a scheduled physical examination. The procedure shall provide for adequate notification of the insured and the treating provider of the consequences of failure to attend the examination.” This essentially requires insurers to provide adequate notification of scheduled IMEs.

The insurance company must submit proof that correspondence was sent to the patient and the provider indicating the time and date of the IME and any receipts or confirmations of delivery of same (i.e. certified mailings). Without such correspondence, there is no tangible proof that the patient or the treating provider were sent the scheduling letters and therefore the scheduling letters cannot be used to terminate benefits, and an alleged failure to cooperate will be overcome

IMEs not timely scheduled

Additionally, N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.7(e) provides: “A physical examination of the injured party shall be conducted as follows: 1. The insurer shall notify the injured person or his or her designee that a physical examination is required to determine the medical necessity of further treatment, diagnostic test or durable medical equipment…2. The appointment for the physical examination shall be scheduled within seven calendar days of receipt of the notice.”

IME scheduling letters that set the date of the exam significantly further out than seven days have been found by certain arbitrators to have violated the statutory requirements, and have, therefore, been ruled to not be an effective means of terminating the patient’s benefits.

Draconian remedy not established

Lastly, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled in New Jersey Auto. Full Ins. Co. v. Jallah, 256 N.J. Super. 134,141 (App. Div. 1992) that a dismissal of an otherwise deserving claim for failure to submit to a statement should be reserved for egregious breaches, referring to the dismissal of a claim as a draconian remedy.

An insurance company’s evidence must demonstrate that the patient’s failure to appear shows that the patient was non-cooperative and egregiously breached his/her duty to cooperate and therefore warrants such a drastic remedy as denial of payment.

Without a showing of an egregious breach, some arbitrators have found that a failure to show at an IME is not sufficient to terminate the patient’s benefits.

Conclusion

If providers become aware that a carrier is seeking to examine a patient, the provider should encourage the patient to attend the examination, as such is required under the policy. If, however, the patient does not attend, there are still several possible defenses to the carrier’s eventual termination of benefits. Callagy Law has been successful at advancing each of the defenses above, depending on the circumstances of the case.

We hope you have found this information helpful and interesting. Please reach out to us here with any questions or comments regarding healthcare legal matters, or if you are a medical provider that has questions regarding Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance.. Feel free to search us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn! Additionally you can subscribe to our daily videos on YouTube.

Learn More About Callagy Law Here:

Failure to Cooperate – IME No Show | Callagy Law

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

PIP ARBITRATION PRACTICE TIP | CALLAGY LAW

THE IMPORTANCE OF FILING INTERNAL APPEALS PRIOR TO FILING A DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION

The purpose of this post is to help assist healthcare providers and owners with questions they have concerning their business or relevant knowledge in the field. The Callagy Law team is knowledgeable in many law practice areas and will frequently post topics ranging from Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, andCommercial Insurance. We hope to have this blog shed a light on many common questions.

One of the most common defenses raised by insurance carriers as a basis to deny a medical provider’s claim for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits is failure to file internal appeals. Prior to filing a Demand for Arbitration on assignment from a patient, medical providers must comply with the PIP insurer’s internal appeal process. Thus, it is of critical importance for medical providers to abide by the PIP insurer’s internal appeal requirements, which can be found in the insurer’s Decision Point Review Plan (“DPRP”). Insurers generally forward their DPRP to treating medical providers after receipt of the treating provider’s 21 day notice letter.

The controlling regulation , N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.7(d)(8), requires that informational materials for policyholders, injured persons and treating medical providers shall include particular information including an explanation of the alternatives available to the provider if reimbursement for a proposed treatment, diagnostic test or durable medical requirement is denied or modified, including the insurer’s internal appeal process and how to use it. If the insurer does not have proof that it sent a copy of its DPRP to the patient and/or treating medical provider, it may lose the right to assert the defense of failure to file an internal appeal based on the fact that there was a lack of notice to the patient and/or treating medical provider of the internal appeals process.

It is important to review the PIP insurer’s internal appeals process since carriers have different requirements regarding whether both a 1^st and 2^nd level internal appeal must be filed, the deadlines for filing same and whether the appeal can be faxed or must be sent by regular mail or certified mail to a specific address listed in the DPRP. Medical providers must retain written proof that they forwarded the internal appeal(s) in compliance with the DPRP requirements, which can be by facsimile confirmation or certified mail return receipt.

There are two different types of internal appeals: (1) an appeal of an adverse determination based on lack of medical necessity and (2) an appeal of non-payments or under-payments, which can be based upon any of the following grounds:

Causation

Improper coding or down-coding of services

Usual, customary and reasonable rates

Lack of documentation

Coverage issues such as lack of cooperation

Improper pre-certification penalties.

Medical providers should keep in mind the importance of listing all potential bases of their appeal since the information listed on the appeal governs and may limit the arguments that may be raised in a later PIP arbitration proceeding.

In sum, medical providers should pay close attention to a PIP insurer’s DPRP plan’s internal appeal requirements. When an insurer denies treatment, a medical provider should promptly file an internal appeal of the denial to protect its rights to proceed to PIP arbitration.

Learn More About Callagy Law Here:

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube

PIP ARBITRATION PRACTICE TIP | CALLAGY LAW

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

UNDER NJ PIP LAW WHO PAYS THE MEDICAL BILLS IF YOU ARE IN A CAR ACCIDENT | Callagy Law

(HINT: It is probably not who you think…)

Let’s say you and a friend are in your car at a stop light, minding your own business waiting for the light to change when BAM!, you are hit from behind by a driver who was too busy texting on his phone to notice that traffic had stopped for a red light. If you are thinking that surely such a negligent driver will have to pay the medical bills you incurred due to his carelessness, chances are you would be wrong.

New Jersey is considered a No-Fault state where almost all motorists (except for a few exceptions) are required have some amount of no fault, or a/k/a PIP coverage as part of their auto insurance policy. This is not to be confused with whatever personal injury claim you may have against the other driver for damages (where in certain circumstances you can sue the negligent driver in a separate claim) this simply covers who pays for the medical treatment you receive if you are injured in an auto accident. PIP coverage is available in varying amounts but its purpose is to essentially assure that in the event of an accident, the medical bills will get paid to the extent provided for in the policy. However, it also means that in many cases, it is you or your family member’s insurance that will pay for your medical bills, even if your injuries are the result of the negligence of another driver.

The way it works is if you are the registered owner of an insured vehicle in New Jersey, your insurance will pay your medical bills up to your policy limits if you are injured in a car accident regardless of who was at fault in the accident. Your insurance will pay for your medical treatment up to your policy limits even if you were not the driver and simply the passenger in someone else’s car when the accident occurred. It is even your insurance that will pay your medical bills up to your policy limits if you were injured as a pedestrian crossing the road and you were hit by a car.

Many people are also shocked to learn that if they are injured in a motor vehicle and they don’t own a car, but a family member they live with does own a vehicle registered in New Jersey, then their medical bills will paid by that family member’s insurance. So let’s say in the example above, you are the passenger in your friend’s vehicle when you are struck from behind by that negligent driver and at the time of the accident you are living with your Great Aunt Tilly who owns a car, but you do not own a car. Surprisingly, it is not the negligent driver’s insurance that pays your medical bills; it is not even the insurance of your friend who owns the car you were riding in when the accident happened. Rather, your medical bills will be paid by your Great Aunt Tilly’s car insurance policy. Surprising, yes?

And, in the event neither you or any family member you live with own a vehicle registered in New Jersey, the law still does not turn to the negligent driver to have your medical bills paid. In that case the law will turn next to the insurance policy of your friend, the driver of the car you were in.

New Jersey has also created The New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association, known as NJPLIGA, to provide for the reimbursement for medical coverage in certain circumstances to certain people such as pedestrians injured by a motor vehicle who don’t own a car or reside with a family member who owns a car, or passengers who do not own a car or otherwise reside with a family member who owns a car and who are injured in a car that does not have insurance. NJPLIGA will not however, pay for medical benefits if you are the owner of an uninsured car.

In sum, there are several factors that can affect the scenarios above such what happens if you injured while riding in a taxi, or on a motorcycle instead of a car, or if you are injured in a car accident while you are driving during the course of your employment, however It is worth noting that in the State of New Jersey for the vast number of car accidents involving privately owned and insured vehicles, your medical bills after a car accident will likely get paid by either your insurance or the insurance of a family member.

Learning from others and seeking to find information is the first step to success. Whether you need questions answered about Medical Revenue Recovery, PIP, Workers Compensation, and Commercial Insurance., Callagy Law is here to assist you every step of the way. We are headquartered in Paramus, NJ and we are full service law firm that specializes in serving businesses, healthcare providers and individuals. Sean Callagy has assembled a team of attorneys that are exceptional leaders in their legal expertise and have been commended for providing exceptional legal services at every level. If you need a true hands of experience with a legal team, feel free to contact us at here and come meet with Sean Callagy himself. There is no substitute when it comes to working with a lawyer and law team that cares deeply about their clients. Feel free to search us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn!

UNDER NJ PIP LAW WHO PAYS THE MEDICAL BILLS IF YOU ARE IN A CAR ACCIDENT | Callagy Law