Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mallela – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 827 N.E.2d 758, 794 N.Y.S.2d 700 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that a "fraudulently incorporated" medical provider is not entitled to reimbursement under no-fault law for services rendered to no-fault claimants, and this holds true even when the services were properly rendered by a licenced medical practitioner.

The Mallela decision has spawned a wide range of knotty problems for District Court and Civil Court Judges, often prolonging the resolution of routine claims for no-fault benefits and adding to court congestion.