Joseph Tunstall on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, host Jason Lazarus engages with Joseph Tunstall from O’Malley Tunstall in a deep dive into cutting-edge strategies for modernizing law practices. Joe discusses the integration of new technologies to streamline operations and enhance client satisfaction. He also emphasizes the transformative impact of the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) in optimizing law firm team efficiency and overcoming common pitfalls such as relinquishing control for better client outcomes. Don’t miss out on this episode packed with actionable insights and advice for trial lawyers looking to achieve greater efficiency in their practices and the best possible client outcomes.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Philip Fairley on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

Don’t miss the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View as host Jason Lazarus sits down with Phillip Fairley from The Rainmaker Institute! Join us for an engaging conversation covering important business of law practice topics like:

Running a Law Firm: Explore the key aspects of running a law firm that can accelerate growth and success, transforming it into a thriving enterprise.

Efficiency and Profitability: Learn how to maximize efficiency and profitability by running a law firm as a business rather than just a legal practice, unlocking its full potential.

Client Acquisition and Retention Strategies: Discover effective strategies that small to mid-size personal injury law firms can implement to improve client acquisition and retention rates, driving business growth and success.

This is a not to be missed episode given the incredible insights provided by Phillip to managing a successful personal injury practice. 

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

CMS’ Data Driven Approach to MSP Compliance

Rasa Fumagalli, JD, MSCC, CMSP-F

It is well established that parties to a settlement involving a current Medicare beneficiary should consider Medicare’s potential interest in the settlement. This interest comes from the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) Act and supporting regulations which provide a framework for Medicare to recover conditional payments from settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries and to avoid making improper payments. The Act prohibits Medicare from making payments for services “to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any of the following: (i) workers’ compensation; (ii) liability insurance; (iii) no-fault insurance” (42 C.F.R. § 411.20; 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A)).

Since Medicare is a secondary payer, parties should address pre-settlement injury-related conditional payments and take appropriate steps to avoid the appearance of a cost shift of future injury-related medical to Medicare in certain settlements. Coordinated Section 111 Mandatory Insurer Reporting is beneficial whenever possible since this reporting serves to drive Medicare’s coordination of benefits. This enforcement mechanism began in January of 2011 and notifies Medicare of settlements involving Medicare beneficiaries.

Section 111 reporting is the responsibility of a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) to Medicare for liability, no-fault, and workers’ compensation plans and insurers. The RRE must report to Medicare if the plan has an Ongoing Responsibility for Medical (ORM) or if the Total Payment Obligation to the Claimant (TPOC) is greater than the reporting threshold of $750.00. Additionally, the RRE must query the Medicare system regularly to identify when a claimant becomes eligible for benefits while the claim is still open.

Under the Section 111 reporting requirements, the RRE must provide the injury victim’s first name, last name, date of birth, gender, Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), and Social Security Number (or the last five digits). Additionally, the RRE must report International Classification of Diseases (“ICD”) -10 diagnosis codes for the illnesses/injuries alleged, claimed or released in the Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) settlement, judgment, award, or other payment. CMS encourages RREs to supply as many valid ICD-9/ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes as possible for the most accurate coordination of benefits. The TPOC report must also include the date and amount of the settlement.

Section 111 data collection plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of the MSP Act. An RRE’s or insurer’s reporting violations will subject them to civil money penalties as of October 11, 2024. CMS is also expanding their collection of Section 111 data in the area of workers’ compensation by adding a specific WCMSA data field. As of April 4, 2025, an RRE will now have to include the specific amount of the WCMSA, even if none is included, when reporting the Total Payment Obligation to Claimant (TPOC) data. The reporting requirement will apply to both CMS-approved and to non-submitted WCMSAs. This additional data will make it easier for CMS’ to deny post-settlement injury-related care. Although this additional reporting field only applies to workers’ compensation settlements, it is possible that this may be rolled out to liability settlements at some future date.  Discussion of ways to make it even easier for Medicare Advantage Plans to access this information is also taking place behind the scenes.  

A recent settlement agreement between MSP Recovery, Inc. d/b/a LifeWallet, and 28 property and casualty (“P&C”) insurers highlights the significance of data sharing when it comes to the preservation of the Medicare Trust Fund. By way of background, LifeWallet has been on a lengthy mission to discover Medicare Advantage liens and enforce primary payer obligations on behalf of their assignments from various Medicare Advantage Organizations. ( See Synergy’s 4/20/2023 blog for additional information the cases https://synergysettlements.com/would-better-billing-by-providers-result-in-fewer-msp-recovery-claims-cases/) A key settlement term reflects the P&C Insurers’ agreement to share the last 10 years of processed claims data and to share data of future claims with LifeWallet in order to assist LifeWallet in their claims reconciliation abilities. A confidential cash payment from the P & C Insurers to LifeWallet is also being made to settle existing claims.

So how does all this data collection impact the injured party and their attorney? When it comes to conditional payment demands, a failure to address them in a timely manner may result in significant consequences. There may be Department of Treasury collection efforts, suits for double damages as well as an offset of the injured party’s benefits. An attorney may also face a legal malpractice claim or attorney disciplinary proceedings. Similar consequences exist for failing to address a Medicare Advantage Plan lien which can be easily missed due to lack of transparency.  Similar to conditional payments, there can be collection efforts by entities like LifeWallet, which also can be for double damages, against personal injury law firms.

A recent attorney disciplinary proceeding entitled Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-559, considered an Ohio attorney’s failure to address conditional payments in the attorney’s permanent disbarment. The disciplinary counsel filed a four-count complaint against Attorney Adams alleging the neglect of three client matters among other things.  The first count involved Adams’ improper handling of a Medicare lien in the amount of $3,969.75, failure to distribute the settlement proceeds to the client, and a failure to refile a UM/UIM case within the statute of limitations.

As a result of Adams’ mishandling of the Medicare lien, the Department of Treasury notified the client that her monthly Social Security benefit would be reduced by up to 15% to satisfy the outstanding Medicare lien. Although the client notified Adams of this, he continued to avoid this issue and took no action to resolve. Meanwhile, the Medicare lien continued to increase due to interest being added on.  Adam’s client also filed a legal malpractice complaint that resulted in a default judgment against Adams with compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, plus court costs and prejudgment interest. In reviewing this count, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court noted numerous ethical violations by Adams and ordered Adams to pay his client $12,971.74 in restitution. The Board further reviewed the three other counts and agreed with the initial hearing panel’s recommendation that Adams should be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.

Although Adams’ actions were extreme, plaintiffs’ attorneys do face risks when it comes to Medicare Secondary Payer compliance issues. CMS’ collection of settlement data not only allows Medicare to recover for conditional payments made prior to settlements, but it also enables them to decline payment of post-settlement injury-related care in certain liability settlement. This risk is one that should be discussed and addressed whenever an attorney is representing a Medicare beneficiary in a personal injury matter that includes an element of future medical.

Conclusion:

Medicare Secondary Payer compliance issues should never be ignored. A proactive approach that screens the Medicare status of each client should be undertaken and updated throughout the duration of representation. It is also imperative that conditional payments and Medicare Advantage liens be addressed in a timely way. Injured parties should be advised about the potential impact of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act on their post-settlement injury-related care and files properly documented. We also recommend that counsel on both sides work together to make sure that the RREs report accurate and consistent Section 111 data to Medicare.

Synergy’s team of MSP compliance experts is here to help you navigate the maze of Medicare. Our MSP 360 services include an MSP compliance audit service, Medicare Expert Case Evaluation (MECE) consultation, Medicare Set-Aside services, and conditional payment negotiations. Reach out to our team today here.

James Grant on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer ViewJames Grant from Georgia Trial Attorneys joins host Jason Lazarus for a deep dive into the multifaceted world of legal practice and law firm management. With a wealth of experience, James shares invaluable insights on balancing the art of lawyering with the business aspects of running a successful firm. From discussing the importance of creating objective metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for maximizing efficiency and profitability to navigating the challenges of scaling a business while ensuring personal growth aligns, James provides actionable advice for trial lawyers seeking to transform their practices into lean, efficient machines.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Why Aren’t More Attorneys Utilizing the Fee Deferral Programs?

April 11, 2024

Childs v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 634 (1994), forms the legal basis for attorney fee deferral and outlined several benefits for attorneys who defer legal fees. The case involved an attorney who had deferred a portion of his contingency fees from representing clients in personal injury cases. The IRS challenged the attorney’s deferral arrangement, but ultimately the Tax Court ruled in favor of the attorney.

Over the past twenty years, the marketplace has expanded greatly. According to the Insurance Information Institute, in 2020, the total losses for liability insurance reached $202.9 billion (inclusive of personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death claims). Similarly, the fee deferral programs available have increased and now attorneys have a wide variety of options and investments available. However, the total amount of dollars that have been deferred by attorneys has stayed stagnant.

Why more attorneys defer taxation of their contingent legal fees?  Great question when you look at the benefits of doing deferral.  But there are important considerations and issues to make sure it is the right choice for a specific fee:

The benefits:

Tax Deferral:      By deferring the receipt of income, one can potentially defer taxation in the current year, lower the overall payment of tax and have their fee grow tax-deferred until received.

Income Averaging: This can help attorneys manage their income and tax liability by spreading payments into more equal annual income to reduce the amount taxed at higher rates. It also allows the firm (business) to plan revenue out with more certainty.

Investment Opportunities: The investment options in a deferral program allow all the dollars to potentially earn interest or capital gains without taxation while they are held in the program.

Asset Protection: Depending on the structure of the deferral agreement, the deferred legal fee may be protected from creditors and other claims.

Retirement Planning: Most of the programs do not have deferral caps and integrate well with other traditional retirement planning strategies.

No lImit (amount or age): The benefits are like most retirement plans but do have the added advantage of no cap on the amount you can defer in a single year and allowable withdrawals prior to age 59.5.  These are extremely valuable when used in conjunction with other retirement planning programs.

The downside: 

Financial Constraints: Attorneys and firms often utilize their personal finances to fund their law firm’s investment in cases. They may prioritize paying down debt or saving for future cases.

Lack of Awareness: The programs available are not widely known in the Tax Attorney, CPA, or Financial Planner markets. These groups are who attorneys typically go to for guidance and advice in their planning. The programs are specific to attorneys working on contingency fees and unique to this profession.

Short-term Thinking: There is always a battle between using funds now and receiving instant gratification versus savings for the long term.

Fear and Uncertainty:  Trial lawyers have income that varies from year to year, sometimes with huge swings up and down. This variance often creates a fear of not being able to access the funds in case of an emergency. In addition, many professionals fear the uncertainty of the economic environment and the performance of markets.

Access Limitation: The programs available have limits on the ability to access funds. You typically cannot increase the amount or frequency of the withdrawal schedule for immediate access.

Time: The programs available require decisions and documentation that is more complex than most retirement plans and becomes part of the settlement documentation. It may take a prospective attorney longer to understand and seek advice from their advisors. Typical plans need to be implemented and set in motion prior to a case coming to a resolution.

Conclusion

Like most retirement plans, attorney fee deferral programs have benefits and risks associated with implementation. If the program is used with other retirement plans, you can overcome many of the obstacles listed above. The benefits of deferring legal fees will vary based on the individual circumstances of the attorney and the terms of the program they utilize. Attorneys should consult with tax and financial professionals to review their specific situation and develop strategies that work best for their wants and needs. Attorney fee deferral programs do not work for everyone but should be considered as part of your overall financial strategy. See here how Synergy can assist today.

Mike Bonamarte on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

In the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View, Jason Lazarus sits down with Mike Bonamarte from Levin & Perconti. They delve into Mike’s landmark Illinois jury verdict of $40 million dollars. Together, they discuss the intricate details behind the substantial verdict, shedding light on the medical malpractice claims and the profound impact of Keira’s birth injuries. Mike’s strategic insights illuminate the factors that influenced the jury’s decision, emphasizing the power of Kiera’s testimony in shaping the final outcome. Through this episode, Mike emphasizes the importance of challenging preconceived notions and inspires listeners to pursue justice for their clients relentlessly, regardless of jurisdiction.

Listen now.

Do Hospitals and Providers Have to Bill Insurance, Including Medicare and Medicaid?

Teresa Kenyon, Esq.

Introduction

The landscape of healthcare billing can be complex and confusing, both for healthcare providers and patients alike. When there is third-party liability involved, such as in cases of accidents or injuries caused by someone other than the patient, the responsibility for billing insurance can become even more complex.  In these situations, a hospital may explore various avenues to determine the primary source of payment for the medical services provided. One common question that often arises is whether hospitals and healthcare providers are obligated to bill insurance, particularly government programs like Medicare or Medicaid. In this post, we will explore healthcare billing, the role of insurance, and the requirements associated with billing Medicare and Medicaid generally and in third-party liability cases.

The Basics of Healthcare Billing

Healthcare billing is the process by which healthcare providers submit claims to insurance companies or government programs to receive payment for the services they render to patients. Health insurance, whether private or government-sponsored, plays a crucial role in covering medical expenses and ensuring access to healthcare services for covered individuals.

Providers are generally encouraged to bill insurance companies to facilitate the reimbursement process and reduce the financial burden on patients. However, the decision to accept insurance and the specific agreements between providers and insurers can vary.

Do Hospitals and Providers Have to Bill Insurance?

In the United States, there is no federal law mandating that hospitals or healthcare providers must bill private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. Providers have the flexibility to decide whether they will accept insurance and enter into agreements with specific insurance plans for the amount of those payments for specific services. While it’s customary for healthcare providers to bill insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, some may choose not to participate in certain networks or programs. However, this decision can have implications for both the provider and the patient, as non-participating providers may charge higher fees, leaving patients responsible for a larger portion of the bill.

Typically, hospitals initiate billing by submitting claims to the primary health insurance for the medical services rendered. This is a standard practice, and hospitals typically bill the patient’s insurance as part of the normal billing process. In situations involving third-party liability, the hospital may engage in a process known as Coordination of Benefits. This involves determining the order in which multiple insurance policies will contribute to covering the patient’s medical expenses. The hospital may work with the patient’s primary insurance provider, and if applicable, the insurance provider who represents the at-fault third party.

The hospital will likely conduct an analysis balancing how they receive the largest payment for their services in the shortest period of time. While the hospital works through the billing and coordination process, the patient may still be responsible for co-pays, deductibles, or any charges not covered by insurance. Clear communication between the hospital and the patient about financial responsibilities is crucial.

Billing Medicare: An Overview

Medicare, a federally funded program, provides health coverage for individuals 65 and older and certain younger individuals who suffer from specified disabilities. Providers can participate in the Medicare program or be non-participating providers, though this is uncommon.

Participating providers agree to accept Medicare-approved amounts as full payment for covered services, and they submit claims directly to Medicare. Non-participating providers may charge more than the Medicare-approved amount and may require patients to pay the difference, known as “balance billing.”

It’s important to note that while providers are not required to participate in Medicare, they are prohibited from discriminating against Medicare beneficiaries. This means that providers cannot refuse to treat a patient solely because they are covered by Medicare.

When the payment for treatment is someone else’s apparent responsibility, the provider has an obligation to not bill Medicare. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Medicare may not pay for a beneficiary’s medical expenses when payment “has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under a workers’ compensation plan, an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan), or under no-fault insurance.”[1] However, if responsibility for the medical expenses incurred is in dispute and other insurance will not pay promptly, the hospital, provider, physician, or other supplier may bill Medicare as the primary payer.

Billing Medicaid: An Overview

Similarly, by law, the Medicaid program is the “payer of last resort.” If another insurer or program has the responsibility to pay for medical costs incurred by a Medicaid-eligible individual, that entity is generally required to pay all or part of the cost of the claim prior to Medicaid making any payment. This is known as “third-party liability” or TPL. Third parties that may be liable to pay for services include private health insurance, Medicare, employer-sponsored health insurance, settlements from a liability insurer, workers’ compensation, long-term care insurance, and other State and Federal programs (unless specifically excluded by Federal statute).

Problems can arise when a provider decides they would rather be reimbursed from a beneficiary’s tort settlement.  A provider may make this decision if it suspects it would be entitled to a higher reimbursement amount than it would receive from Medicaid.  This does not always work out in the provider’s favor if the settlement amount ends up not being enough to satisfy the provider’s claim.  Typically, providers have only 1 year from the date of service to submit bills to Medicaid. 

Navigating the Billing Process

Patients should be proactive in understanding their insurance coverage and seeking clarification from providers about their billing practices. It is advisable to confirm whether a healthcare provider accepts the insurance, including Medicare or Medicaid, and inquire about any potential out-of-pocket costs. Being informed and seeking in-network providers can significantly alleviate the complexities of the billing process.

No Surprises Act

The No Surprises Billing Act, officially known as the No Surprises Act, is a U.S. federal law enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. It addresses the issue of surprise medical billing, a situation where patients receive unexpectedly high medical bills, often due to receiving care from out-of-network providers, even in emergencies or situations beyond their control. The act aims to protect patients from exorbitant bills for out-of-network healthcare services, particularly in emergency situations and certain non-emergency situations.

Key provisions of the No Surprises Billing Act include:

  • Patients are protected from surprise billing in emergency situations, where they have little or no control over the choice of healthcare provider, by limiting their out-of-pocket costs to in-network amounts.
  • In situations where insurers and providers cannot agree on reimbursement rates for out-of-network services, the No Surprises Act establishes an Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process. This process involves an independent third party reviewing and resolving disputes between healthcare providers and insurers regarding reimbursement.
  • The Act requires healthcare providers and insurers to provide patients with a good faith estimate of the expected costs for scheduled services, allowing patients to better understand and plan for their healthcare expenses.
  • Patients are protected from balance billing for out-of-network emergency services and certain non-emergency services provided at in-network facilities.

The No Surprises Billing Act primarily focuses on protecting patients from unexpected and excessive medical bills, and it does not specifically address third-party liability situations in the traditional sense. However, its impact on third-party liability scenarios can be seen in the context of emergency care and situations where patients have limited control over the choice of healthcare providers.

In cases of emergency care, where patients may not have the opportunity to choose in-network providers, the No Surprises Act helps protect patients from balance billing and ensures that their out-of-pocket costs are limited to the amounts they would pay for in-network services. While the No Surprises Act primarily addresses disputes between insurers and providers, the IDR process could potentially be used in certain third-party liability situations where disagreements arise over reimbursement for medical services.

Conclusion

In the complex world of healthcare billing, there is no universal requirement for hospitals and providers to bill insurance, including Medicare or Medicaid. The decision to participate in insurance programs is often at the discretion of individual providers. In normal situations, patients should advocate for themselves by being informed about their insurance coverage, seeking in-network providers when possible, and clarifying billing arrangements with healthcare providers. In third-party liability situations, planning is often not possible. However, the No Surprises Billing Act should add a layer of protection, preventing unexpected billing surprises for patients whether or not available insurance is billed, or the hospital maintains a debt or asserts a lien.


[1] 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2).

Joe Mechlinski on TLV

Hello, Fellow Trial Lawyers!

Don’t miss out on the latest episode of Trial Lawyer View! Join Jason Lazarus as he sits down with Joe Mechlinski from SHIFT. In this episode, Jason delves into the realm of law firm team performance and engagement with Joe. Joe highlights the critical role of organizational culture in fostering high-performing legal teams, emphasizing the importance of removing barriers and blockers that hinder success. Through innovative approaches like SHIFT and tools like Latch, Joe provides insights into optimizing team engagement and productivity. He challenges traditional notions of work hours, advocating for flexibility to empower law firm employees to do their best work. With Joe’s expertise, listeners gain valuable insights into creating a supportive environment that unleashes the full potential of legal teams.

Listen now.

Thanks for listening!

Jason D. Lazarus, Esq.

Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits

Rasa Fumagalli, JD, MSCC, CMSP-F

Personal injury lawsuits seek to secure compensation for individuals who have suffered harm due to the negligence of others. Although injured parties can never be fully made whole, for personal injury attorneys it is important to highlight all of the various damages injured parties have suffered when negotiating settlements. This article will focus on the future medical expenses and how to maximize their recovery.

Future Medical Damages

Determining the future medical expenses in a case is pivotal in assessing damages, crafting arguments, and ultimately securing just compensation for the injured party. Central to this process is the use of Medical Cost Projections (MCPs), a tool that forecasts the potential healthcare expenses incurred due to an injury.

Medical Cost Projections entail a meticulous evaluation of the injured party’s medical history, prognosis, treatment plans, and anticipated healthcare needs. By leveraging medical records, MCPs aim to forecast the future expenses directly and indirectly attributable to the injury sustained.

The methodology involved encompasses a multifaceted approach. It involves analyzing past medical bills, considering potential complications or additional procedures, and factoring in rehabilitation and long-term care costs. Additionally, MCPs rely on Standard of Care and Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines to project costs accurately.

Standard of Care (SoC) and Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) Guidelines

SoC guidelines represent a benchmark defining the level of care, treatment modalities, and diagnostic approaches that healthcare professionals are expected to provide for patients suffering from a specific medical condition or undergoing a particular procedure. These guidelines are formulated by medical societies, expert panels, and healthcare regulatory bodies based on a thorough review of available evidence, best practices, and expert consensus.

SoC guidelines encompass a spectrum of recommendations, covering diagnostics, treatment options, follow-up care, and expected outcomes for various medical conditions. They serve as a framework for healthcare providers, outlining the most appropriate and effective approaches to patient care based on the current understanding of the medical field.

EBM, on the other hand, forms the cornerstone of clinical decision-making, emphasizing the integration of the best available evidence from systematic research with clinical expertise and patient values. It involves critically appraising scientific literature, clinical trials, meta-analyses, and other sources of empirical data to inform medical decisions.

The core principles of EBM revolve around the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. It encourages healthcare practitioners to evaluate the validity, reliability, and applicability of evidence before incorporating it into clinical practice.

In the realm of Medical Cost Projection, SoC guidelines and EBM significantly influence the accuracy, reliability, and comprehensiveness of cost projections. Here’s how they intertwine within MCP reports:

  1. Treatment Protocol Adherence: MCP reports rely on SoC guidelines to outline the expected course of treatment for a particular medical condition or injury. Adhering to these guidelines ensures that the projected costs encompass treatments that are considered standard and appropriate within the medical community.
  2. Validity of Projections: Evidence-based approaches underpin the validity of MCP reports. By aligning projections with empirical evidence derived from studies, clinical trials, and accepted practices outlined in SoC guidelines, MCPs maintain credibility in estimating future medical expenses.
  3. Effectiveness of Interventions: SoC guidelines, based on evidence, often highlight the most effective interventions or treatments. MCP reports factor in these interventions to project costs accurately, reflecting the expenses associated with evidence-supported treatments and expected outcomes.
  4. Rationale for Projections: Incorporating SoC guidelines and EBM into MCP reports provides a rationale for the projected costs. It establishes a clear link between the anticipated medical expenses and the recommended evidence-backed treatments and interventions.
  5. Dynamic Nature of Evidence: EBM acknowledges the evolving nature of medical knowledge. MCP reports must consider updates and revisions in SoC guidelines and emerging evidence to ensure projections remain aligned with the latest evidence-based practices.

In personal injury cases, adherence to SoC guidelines and EBM principles in MCP reports strengthens the medical damages arguments. It substantiates claims regarding the necessity and reasonableness of projected medical expenses, providing empirical support for the damages sought on behalf of injured individuals.

Value of Medical Cost Projections in Personal Injury Cases

MCPs offer profound value and serve multiple critical purposes in settlement negotiations. First, they provide a tangible framework for assessing damages. Furthermore, attorneys armed with precise projections can devise long-term strategies, including structuring settlements to cover future medical expenses adequately. This foresight safeguards clients from being under-compensated and helps in securing resources for continued care and rehabilitation.

 Synergy is here to help you quantify the future medical damages portion of your case. Our attorneys and nurses have the knowledge as well as expertise to help maximize the recovery.  Contact Synergy today to learn more about how our MCP report can simplify the negotiation of future medical care for your case.

[hubspot type=”form” portal=”7609853″ id=”d5449199-3a94-4934-bea7-ce2e6f2deec0″]