MEDICARE COMPLIANCE
Welcome to Synergy’s blog page dedicated to the topic of Medicare compliance. Our team of Medicare experts share their InSights and knowledge on the latest developments and best practices for law firms to stay compliant with the MSP. Stay up-to-date with the latest trends and strategies to ensure that you have the information you need to navigate the complex world of Medicare compliance. Our blogs provide practical tips and advice for ensuring that your clients receive the medical care they need while complying with Medicare’s requirements. Let our experts guide you through the intricacies of Medicare compliance and help you stay on top of the latest developments in this rapidly-evolving field.
By Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., MSCC
The government takes its reimbursement rights seriously and is willing to pursue trial lawyers who ignore Medicare’s interest. On November 4th, 2019, The United States Attorney for the District of Maryland announced that a Baltimore-based law firm paid the United States $91,406.98 to resolve allegations that it failed to pay back Medicare for conditional payments that had been paid on behalf of firm clients. The press release, while scant on details, seems to indicate that the firm had entered into a joint-representation agreement with co-counsel who in turn did not reimburse Medicare at settlement. According to U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur, “Plaintiffs’ attorneys cannot refer a case to or enter into a joint representation agreement with co-counsel and simply wash their hands clean of their obligations to reimburse Medicare for its conditional payments.” He went on to say, “We intend to hold attorneys accountable for failing to make good on their obligations to repay Medicare for its conditional payments, regardless of whether they were the ones primarily handling the litigation for the plaintiff.”
Similarly, earlier this year in March, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland announced that a Maryland personal injury law firm had agreed to pay the United States $250,000 to settle claims that it did not reimburse Medicare for payments made on behalf of a firm client. As part of the settlement, the firm “also agreed to (1) designate a person at the firm responsible for paying Medicare secondary payer debts; (2) train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and (3) review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months to ensure compliance.”
This is the third such settlement in the last two years. Back in June of 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement with a Philadelphia personal injury law firm involving failure to reimburse Medicare. The firm agreed to start a “compliance program” and the DOJ stated that this “settlement agreement should remind personal injury lawyers and others of their obligation to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments after receiving settlement or judgment proceeds for their clients.” The U.S. Attorney’s office also stated, “When an attorney fails to reimburse Medicare, the United States can recover from the attorney—even if the attorney already transmitted the proceeds to the client. Congress enacted these rules to ensure timely repayment from responsible parties, and we intend to hold attorneys accountable for failing to make good on their obligations.”
Consequently, in today’s complicated regulatory landscape, a comprehensive plan for Medicare compliance has become vitally important to personal injury practices. Lawyers assisting Medicare beneficiaries are personally exposed to damages and malpractice risks daily when they handle or resolve cases for Medicare beneficiaries. Synergy can be your resource for total Medicare Compliance. For a deeper dive, you can view the following 15-minute video presentation on this subject at: https://youtu.be/2EH7QWjj2zw
Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., CSSC, MSCC
In the past, trial lawyers never had to worry about whether Medicare would pay for their client’s future care post-settlement. There is cause for concern that this may not be the case in the future. Consider this scenario – you represent a current Medicare beneficiary in a third-party liability case. As part of the workup of the case, you determine the client will need future medical care related to the injuries suffered. This could be determined by either deposing the treating physician or by the creation of a life care plan for litigation purposes. Ultimately, you settle the case. Since the client is a Medicare beneficiary, the defendant will report the settlement under the Mandatory Insurer Reporting law as it is greater than $750.00 in gross settlement proceeds. The defendant puts some language into the release about a Medicare Set-Aside being the injury victim’s responsibility and that they can’t shift the burden. Everyone signs the release and settlement dollars are paid. The file is closed, then forgotten. But what if that course of action triggers a denial of future care by Medicare?
For many years this was not even a concern for trial attorneys and their clients. However, the risk of this occurring is now a very real possibility. In fact, last year, a personal injury victim got this type of notice of denial for injury-related care from Medicare. The service provided was hospital outpatient clinic services under Part B of Medicare. The bill was denied, based upon the notice, because Medicare said “you may have funds set aside from your settlement to pay for your future medical expenses and prescription drug treatment related to your injury (ies).” The denial was related to a 2014 personal injury settlement wherein the Medicare beneficiary was paid money as damages for future injury-related care. Medicare’s position that an injury victim can’t settle their case and shift the burden to the Medicare Trust Fund for injury-related care isn’t new. Medicare has stated this premise over and over. This is just the first time anyone has seen an actual denial.
So, the question going forward is whether this was an isolated denial or actually represents Medicare’s shift to active enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s central premise. While it may provide some comfort to think this is an isolated incident, the reality is that Medicare Set-Asides are clearly a top priority and on the radar for CMS. As noted before in previous posts, there is currently an OMB Rulemaking process going on related to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and Medicare Set-Asides. The insurance industry, the plaintiff bar, and industry stakeholders are all bending CMS’s ear regarding a future process. It is expected that proposed regulations will be disseminated sometime in the fall of 2019. The question in the interim is, what do you do to protect yourself from a malpractice claim and protect your client from a denial?
Unfortunately, there is no cookie-cutter answer. It is a case-by-case analysis. In some instances, there may be an argument that future medicals aren’t funded at all by the settlement. In other cases, there might be an argument that a reduced amount of future medicals should be set aside to satisfy obligations under the MSP because the case settled for less than full value. There are just too many possibilities to give a simple one size fits all answer. However, what is clear, doing nothing has its risks. For example, the client who received the denial of care likely will face a lengthy appeals process within Medicare that must be exhausted before ever getting to step foot into a Federal district court. In that scenario, the client is going to have to decide between paying out of their own pocket for future care or waiting for the care until exhausting all appeals and prevailing over Medicare.
While the problem created for the client is a serious one if they are denied care, an equally scary proposition for the trial lawyer is their exposure for malpractice claims in this scenario. Let’s assume that the injury victim who got this denial letter was not properly advised of the risks of failing to set aside money, would the trial lawyer potentially face a suit for legal malpractice? The answer is most likely they would. There could be all sorts of arguments made about whether they fell below the standard of care, but in the end, this is a known issue and one that is of the law. Worse yet, a trial lawyer and his/her firm could have Medicare breathing down their necks. While we haven’t see any instances of Medicare pursuing a law firm over failing to set up a Medicare Set-Aside, there are recent examples of law firms being pursued by the Department Of Justice (DOJ) related to other aspects of the MSP and failing to have a process internally to ensure compliance with the MSP. As part of a recent 2019 settlement after the DOJ brought action against a Maryland personal injury law firm, the firm agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve MSP claims and also agreed “to (1) designate a person at the firm responsible for paying Medicare secondary payer debts; (2) train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and (3) review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months to ensure compliance.” This was the second such settlement in a little over a year.
With these kinds of risks at stake, why do personal injury firms take their chances with the potential for denials of care, malpractice actions and worse yet government action? The answer is pretty simple, there is a lack of clarity of information and education about responsibilities under the MSP by Medicare. It falls upon industry stakeholders to try and make all the parties who are involved in personal injury lawsuits aware of these issues and how to effectively deal with them. So then the question is how do you make sure you are totally Medicare compliant?
Realizing there isn’t a definitive answer related to set-asides, we do have some recommendations:
- Put into place a method of screening your files to determine those that involve Medicare beneficiaries or those with a reasonable expectation of becoming a Medicare beneficiary within 30 months.
- Contact Medicare and report appropriately the settlement to get a final demand.
- Audit the final demand and avail yourself of the compromise/waiver process for conditional payments.
- Consult with client and explain the possibility of loss of future benefits without a Medicare Set-Aside so that an informed decision can be made about available options to consider Medicare’s future interests.
- Identify any potential Part C/MAO liens and resolve those as well.
Start early and do not let the defendant-insurer control the Medicare compliance process. At the outset of your case you have to confirm disability eligibility with Social Security and get copies of all insurance as well as government assistance cards. Make sure you understand who is potentially Medicare eligible such as those who are on SSDI, those turning 65, someone with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) or a child disabled before age 22 with a parent drawing Social Security benefits. Collaborate with the other side regarding what is being reported under Mandatory Insurer Reporting laws. Be active in mandating the proper ICD codes to be included in the release to make sure reporting is accurate.
If a client is a Medicare beneficiary, then evaluate with the client the possibility of a set-aside. Discuss with competent experts the proper steps for MSP compliance. Properly word the release if a set aside is being used to make sure the client doesn’t get saddled with inappropriate language or lose itemized deductions. Appropriate planning will avoid a bad outcome.
Medicare beneficiaries must understand the risk of losing their Medicare coverage should they decide to set aside nothing from their personal injury settlement for future Medicare-covered expenses related to the injury. Properly educating the client is key to ensure an informed decision can be made relative to these issues. Beyond education of the client, the most critical issue becomes how to properly document your file about what was done and why with regard to MSP compliance. This part is where the experts come into play. For most practitioners, it is nearly impossible to know all of the nuances and issues that arise with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. From identifying liens, resolving conditional payments, deciding to set money aside, the creation of the allocation to the release language and the funding/administration of a set-aside, there are issues that can be daunting for even the most well informed personal injury practitioner. Without proper consultation and guidance, mistakes can lead to unhappy clients, or worse yet, a legal malpractice claim.
B. Josh Pettingill
There is mounting evidence that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will establish formal guidelines for liability MSAs in the imminent future. Medicare Secondary Payor compliance related to future medical care is an issue that can’t be ignored but that doesn’t necessarily mean setting up a Medicare Set-Aside on every case involving a Medicare beneficiary. The following post will highlight several real-world case studies in order to educate plaintiff attorneys on how to eliminate or reduce any Medicare Set-Aside issues for liability claims.
Key Takeaways
- Medicare Secondary Payor Compliance is serious business and shouldn’t be ignored as evidenced by recent DOJ actions against personal injury law firms.
- There is no black and white solution as it relates to MSP compliance and futures.
- Plaintiff attorneys must control the MSA process if they want to avoid unwanted delays.
- A treating physicians’ attestation indicating the care is completed is the only CMS approved way to avoid an MSA.
- Plaintiff attorneys must be vigilant about the release language for their client’s protection of Medicare benefits.
Introduction
Most defendants have started to mandate, as part of the release language, that the plaintiff choose one of two below options for addressing Medicare’s future interests, without exception in return for payment of the settlement monies:
- Plaintiff agrees to get a letter from the treating doctor that, as of the date of settlement, all accident-related medical care has been provided/completed[1]. This is a viable solution to avoid any possible future denial of injury related Medicare covered services.
- Plaintiff agrees to do a Medicare Set-Aside and agrees not to bill Medicare for any future care related to the subject accident until the set-aside is exhausted.
To illustrate this point, below is an actual email (redacted) from a defense attorney to the plaintiff attorney that highlights such a tactic by the insurance carriers. This case involved a $15,000 global settlement on an auto accident. This email is a perfect example of what is becoming the norm for Medicare-eligible plaintiffs.
Dear Plaintiff’s Attorney,
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I have conferred with my client on this issue, and due to your client’s Medicare eligibility, my client is obligated under the laws previously mentioned to protect Medicare, which includes the treating physician certification requirement or doing a Medicare set aside. This is a legal obligation and therefore I am not authorized to remove these terms from the Release. The treating certification can simply be in the form of a letter that tracks the language in the CMS Memo.
Thank you,
Defense Attorney
Application
One could argue that most liability cases that settle for $15,000 or less do not fund future medicals when all damages are considered; therefore, there is no need to consider a liability set-aside for any case that resolves under $15,000. In the case example involving the email from defense counsel, the client had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and had completed all the accident-related care. The settlement was delayed for months before the attorney contacted Synergy for assistance because the attorney did not want to jeopardize his client’s Medicare benefits. Ultimately, Synergy was able to provide template language to the attorney for the treating doctor to specify that the care was completed at the time of the settlement. If the circumstances had been different and this plaintiff had required future care in this example, then the parties could have done an analysis of the future medical expenses compared to the net recovery to calculate the MSA amount. An MSA does not always involve getting a full report done with a comprehensive medical review; it simply means setting aside monies based on all the facts of the case. To avoid these types of delays post-settlement, one idea for attorneys to consider is to have consensus by the settlement parties on release language (including any/all Medicare language) prior to going to mediation. That way, there are no unwanted delays in receiving the settlement funds once the case had been resolved.
No Medicare Set-Aside
There are situations when a no-treatment attestation letter by a treating physician is not applicable whereby future medicals are not funded. This is a prime example: Synergy was retained on a policy limits case that resolved for a total of $500,000 whereby a husband and wife were hit by a drunk driver after leaving a restaurant. As a result of the accident, both became paraplegics. The past liens were greater than $1 million and the future damages exceeded $25 million. Even though the release language stated that it was a release for past, present and future damages, there were simply no monies leftover to fund any future medicals. In this scenario, Synergy was able to put together a “No MSA” letter for the plaintiff, indicating the same and that Medicare’s future interests were adequately considered. The file was documented to indicate why nothing was set-aside. The release language also memorialized that there were no settlement funds paid out for future medicals.
Conclusion
There is no black and white approach to addressing MSP compliance on liability settlements. Synergy has created a litmus test for attorneys to screen cases and to determine whether an MSA is an appropriate solution. To download that document, click here. Plaintiff’s counsel should insist on controlling the MSA process from start to finish as they are the ones who have legal malpractice risks and personal liability if, in fact, they fail to properly advise their client regarding the Set-Aside issue. Synergy frequently can justify why there is no need for an MSA or greatly reduce the MSA obligation. These savings are real dollars that go directly to the injury victim instead of Medicare.
Synergy provides no cost consultations to attorneys; please contact us if you have any questions that we can help you with at (877) 242-0022 or schedule a consultation here.
[1] On September 29, 2011, CMS issued a memorandum indicating there is no need for a liability Medicare Set-Aside and that its interests would be satisfied if the treating physician certified in writing that treatment for the alleged injury related to the liability insurance had been completed as of the date of settlement
To learn more about Liability Medicare Set-Asides MSAs Case Studies watch our educational video below.
Jason D. Lazarus, J.D., LL.M., CSSC, MSCC
On March 18, 2019, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland announced that the law firm of Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., has agreed to pay the United States $250,000 to settle claims that it did not reimburse Medicare for payments made on behalf of a firm client. As part of the settlement, the firm “also agreed to (1) designate a person at the firm responsible for paying Medicare secondary payer debts; (2) train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and (3) review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months to ensure compliance.”
This is the second such settlement in the last year. In June 2018, a similar settlement was announced by the U.S. Department of Justice Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. To read more about this prior settlement, click HERE. Both of these settlements should remind attorneys of “their obligation to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments after receiving [a] settlement or judgment proceeds for their clients [as well as] not to disburse settlement proceeds until receipt of a final demand from Medicare to pay the outstanding debt.”
In today’s complicated regulatory landscape, a comprehensive plan for Medicare compliance has become vitally important to personal injury practices. Lawyers assisting Medicare beneficiaries are personally exposed to damages and malpractice risks daily when they handle or resolve cases for Medicare beneficiaries. The list of things to be concerned about is growing daily. The list includes things such as:
- Not knowing what medical information/ICD codes are being reported by defendant insurers complying with Mandatory Insurer Reporting law (MIR) created by MMSEA.
- Agreeing to onerous “Medicare Compliance” language—that may be inapplicable or inaccurate –which binds the personal injury victim.
- Failing to report and resolve conditional payment obligations leading to personal liability.
- Not using processes to obtain money back from Medicare using the compromise and waiver process.
- Failure to identify a lien, such as those asserted by Medicare Part C lien holders thereby exposing the personal injury lawyer and the firm to double damages.
- Inadequate education of clients about Medicare compliance when it comes to ‘futures’ and the risks of denial of future injury-related care.
What do you do? The answer is to develop a process to identify those who are Medicare beneficiaries in your practice and make sure that a process is put into place to deal with the myriad of issues that can arise. Given the liability a law firm faces for failing to be compliant, outsourcing this function to experts like those at Synergy helps mitigate the firm’s risk. Synergy’s Total Medicare Compliance program allows a law firm to address issues like Medicare Conditional Payment obligations, Medicare Advantage liens as well as Medicare Set Aside concerns by turning to us.
All lawyers assisting those on Medicare must be in the know when it comes to dealing with Medicare conditional payments as well as Part C/MAO liens. Medicare beneficiaries must understand the risk of losing their Medicare coverage should they decide to set-aside nothing from their personal injury settlement for future Medicare covered expenses related to the injury. Ultimately, it is about educating the client to make sure they can make an informed decision relative to these issues. Beyond education of the client, the most critical issue becomes how to properly document your file about what was done and why. This part is where the experts come into play. For most practitioners, it is nearly impossible to know all the nuances and issues that arise with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. From identifying liens, resolving conditional payments, deciding to set money aside, the creation of the allocation to the release language and the funding/administration of a set aside, there are issues that can be daunting for even the most well-informed personal injury practitioner. Without proper consultation and guidance, mistakes can lead to unhappy clients or worse yet a legal malpractice claim.
For more information about our Medicare Compliance services, click here.
Medicare Advantage Private Cause of Action is Now Sweeping the Country
Courts across the country continue to rule that Medicare Advantage Plans (MAP or MAO) are enforceable and shall be entitled to double damages if not repaid in third party liability situations. The trial bar has been aware of this significant exposure since 2016 when Humana Insurance Company v. Paris Blank LLP et al., No. 3:2016cv00079 – Document 23 (E.D. Va. 2016) confirmed that attorneys are personally liable to repay Medicare Advantage plans. (See previous Synergy Blog Post). Adding to the concern is Western Heritage’s ruling which stated that the amount due “shall” be double the amount of the Medicare Advantage plan’s Final Demand (Humana v. Western Heritage Insurance Co., No. 15-11436 (11th Cir. 2016) (See previous Synergy Blog Post)). Two recent cases continue the reasoning that Medicare Advantage Plans, via the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, have a private cause of action and are entitled to double damages when a “primary plan” fails to reimburse them for conditional payments made on behalf of a beneficiary.
The first is Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Guerreras, et al. filed in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut. In this case, Aetna, who was the Medicare Advantage Plan, filed an action against Nellina Guerrera, her attorneys and the defendant in the personal injury action. Guerrera and her attorneys were dismissed. However, the case is moving forward against the defendant. The private cause of action provision, entitling Aetna to double damages, was not dismissed against Big Y, the defendant, as they were found to be the primary plan or payer as defined by the MSP law. Big Y’s duty was to be sure that Aetna was reimbursed and this was not guaranteed or accomplished by making payment to the insured and their attorney.
The second case is Humana, Inc, United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Aetna, Inc. v. Shrader Sc Associates LLP, out of the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In this case, Shrader Associates LLP (a Plaintiff’s law firm representing asbestos trusts) argued that the trusts were not primary plans under the MSP “primary plan” definition. The court disagreed in this opinion, holding that the MSP permits a MAP to sue a primary plan that fails to reimburse it for primary payments.
Unlike the Connecticut case, which held that attorneys are not personally liable, the Texas court found, as has every other court who has dealt with this issue, that attorneys are “primary plans” and are personally liable. In Shrader, the court found that attorneys are expressly listed in the regulations as a “primary plan.”
42 C.F.R. §411.24(g):
“CMS has a right of action to recover its payments from any entity, including a beneficiary, provider, supplier, physician, attorney, State agency or private insurer that has received a primary payment.”
And
42 C.F.R. § 411.24(i)(1):
“If a beneficiary or other party fails to reimburse Medicare within 60 days of receiving primary payment, the primary plan ‘must reimburse Medicare even though it has already reimbursed the beneficiary or other party.”
42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A)
There is established a private cause of action for damages (which shall be in an amount double the amount otherwise provided) in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for [ ] payment … or reimbursement.
Trial Attorneys Beware!
If a trial attorney reports a case to Medicare and the plaintiff is actually on a Medicare Advantage Plan, neither CMS nor BCRC inform the trial attorney. Unless the plaintiff has informed the trial attorney of the existence of a Medicare Advantage Plan, there is no way for the attorney to know. There is no “portal” to check, or central repository of information from which a trial attorney could obtain some level of certainty that any potential repayment obligation is satisfied. Medicare Advantage plans are not required to follow any of the reporting or disclosure obligations that exist for traditional fee-for-service Medicare (A&B) plans. Humana and other Medicare Advantage plans continue to benefit from this lack of transparency to avoid disclosure and to make the private cause of action a profit center funded by the trial bar.
The burden is on the trial attorney to discover and satisfy these Medicare Advantage repayment obligations or potentially be forced to pay double themselves. A few best practices:
- Get all insurance cards from your client or their personal representative – Clients on Medicare Advantage plans often refer to their coverage as Medicare.
- Confirm effective dates of coverage – Clients can switch back and forth from Medicare A&B to an MAO and back each year.
- Potentially a repayment obligation to both CMS and an MAO may exist in the same case for the same accident, so you must check for both.
- If you are expecting a large conditional payment amount from CMS and it is small or zero this should be a red flag that potentially an MAO is paying.
- Review billing statements from hospitals and providers to determine if an MAO is making payment.
- Consult an expert.
Another likely result of this case is that the trial attorney should now expect the same treatment of Medicare Advantage claims by defense counsel as is now the case with Medicare A&B. Defense counsel may demand written confirmation that any purported Medicare Advantage lien has been satisfied, and may be reluctant to disburse funds to the plaintiff with only the expectation that the plaintiff will satisfy this obligation.
Synergy will continue to actively protect injury victims and the attorneys who represent them. If you are having an issue with Medicare or Medicare Advantage plans give us a call and speak to an expert 877-242-0022.
Janice Vincent
Senior Medicare Lien Resolution Specialist
New Medicare Portal Goes Live January 2016
On November 9th 2015, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the much anticipated, and long overdue, start date for the new Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP). The new MSPRP will begin functioning on January 1, 2016. The current MSP Web portal permits authorized users to register through the Web portal in order to access MSP conditional payment amounts electronically and update certain case-specific information online.
CMS is adding functionality to the existing MSP Web portal that will permit users to notify them when the specified case is approaching settlement, download or otherwise obtain time and date stamped Final Conditional Payment Summary forms and amounts before reaching settlement. Additionally, the new MSP Web portal will ensure that relatedness disputes and any other discrepancies are addressed within eleven business days of receipt of dispute documentation.
The process is rather straight forward and will address many of the issues that have plagued the plaintiff’s bar in attempting to settle a personal injury action without any certainty of the repayment amount due Medicare. The process will begin when the beneficiary, their attorney or other representative (such as Synergy) provides the required notice of a pending liability insurance settlement to the appropriate Medicare contractor at least one hundred eighty five days before the anticipated date of settlement.
If the beneficiary, their attorney or other representative (Synergy), believes that claims included in the most up-to-date Conditional Payment Summary form are unrelated to the pending liability insurance “settlement”, they may address discrepancies through a dispute process available through the MSP Web portal. This dispute may be made once and only once. Following the dispute CMS has only eleven business days to resolve the dispute.
After disputes have been fully resolved, and a final claims refresh has been executed on the MSP Web portal, then a time and date stamped Final Conditional Payment Summary may be downloaded through the MSP Web portal. This form will constitute the Final Conditional Payment amount if settlement is reached within 3 days of the date on the Conditional Payment Summary.
The plaintiff attorney will complete the process by providing, within thirty days, the settlement information to CMS via the MSP Web portal. This information will include, but is not limited to: the date of “settlement”, the total “settlement” amount, the attorney fee amount or percentage, and additional costs borne by the beneficiary to obtain his or her “settlement”. If this information is not provided within thirty days, the Final Conditional Payment amount obtained through the Web portal will expire.
BLOGS
READY TO SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION?
The Synergy team will work diligently to ensure your case gets the attention it deserves. Contact one of our legal experts and get a professional review of your case today.
