YOU’VE ALREADY BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT SO DON’T GET RUN OVER BY YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY
ORTHOPEDIC MEDICINE • CHIROPRACTIC • THERAPEUTIC EXERCISE ACUPUNCTURE • ELECTRODIAGNOSIS •EPIDURAL EVALUATIONS
ALL IN ONE LOCATION-CALL TODAY 201-869-0830
If You Sustain a Legitimate Injury Due To a Car Accident, New Jersey Law Entitles You to Coverage For Medically Necessary Treatment And Testing Regardless of Fault. However, There Is No Guarantee That Your Medically Necessary Treatment And Testing Will Be Paid For By The Insurance Company.
New Jersey Law requires your doctor to submit medically sound and substantiated Pre-Certification Requests. In the event the services are denied, he must then submit Evidence-Based Appeals to ensure the Denial is overturned and your medical bills will be paid. Without this, you may have additional larger payment deductions from your fair settlement or verdict to pay for unapproved treatment or testing.
New Jersey Rutgers University Law Professor Jay M. Feinman has noted in his book “Delay, Deny and Defend” available at: www.delaydenydefend.com.
“Too widespread and too often. As the new claim strategies have been implemented there have been an increasing number of cases in which companies have delayed payment, denied valid claims, and unnecessarily defended litigation. Minor auto accidents have become the source of major litigation as companies routinely and systematically deny claims.”
Therefore, Choosing Your Doctor is as Important as Choosing Your Lawyer!
“A doctor's legal knowledge is essential. The legal rights of a person injured in an automobile accident are inextricably entwined with the ability of the patient's doctor to understand both medicine and the law. Over the years, Dr. Anthony W. Marsh has proven himself to be a most worthy example of this desired practitioner.”
Post-Graduate Law Professor Gerald H. Baker, Esq.
Common Myths Regarding Car Accident Injuries
Freeman, Croft and Reisner, Trial, March 1, 1999 Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Page: 62(5)
“The methodology used by researchers attempting to refute the validity of whiplash syndrome is generally flawed. More specifically, we have concluded that there is no epidemiologic or scientific basis for the following statements, which are often made by defendants:
* Acute whiplash injuries do not lead to chronic pain.
* These injuries are unlikely to result in chronic pain in countries in which there is no compensation for injury.
* Rear-impact collisions that do not result in vehicle damage are unlikely to cause injury.
* Whiplash trauma is biomechanically comparable to common movements of daily living.
Society of Automotive Engineers paper entitled "Lack of Relationship Between Vehicle Damage and Occupant Injury"; Malcolm C. Robbins, SAE 970494 (1997):
“However, the crush damage does not relate to the expected occupant injury, i.e. the more vehicle damage, the more chance that the occupant is injured, is not a conclusion that can be made. In fact, it is more likely the reverse.”
Med Sci Monit paper entitled "Correlating crash severity with injury risk, injury severity, and long-term symptoms in low velocity motor vehicle collisions";Arthur C. Croft, et al, Med Sci Monit, 2005; 11(10): RA316-321:
"A substantial number of injuries are reported in crashes of little or no property damage. Property damage is an unreliable predictor of injury risk or outcome in low velocity crashes. The MIST (Minor Impact Soft Tissue) protocol for prediction of injury does not appear to be valid."