The PIP Statute (GL Chapter 90 Section 34M) requires a PIP insurer to pay our fee and reimburse legal costs (which we advance on your behalf) if we are successful.

At Alekman DiTusa, we have decades of experience negotiating PIP claims.  As such, it has been our experience that the vast majority of cases settle before trial (over 99%), with our clients putting 100% of their outstanding balance in their pocket, and the insurer paying our fee and reimbursing the expenses.

The Statute of Limitations for collecting PIP benefits is 6 years from the point of the insurer’s breach of contract (either the last denial or last payment to you). The longer you delay, the less money we can collect for you. Therefore, we urge you to reach out as soon as possible to schedule a complimentary consultation.

This term typically refers to the process by which an insurer performs a statistical analysis of your bill with the help of a computer database. The stated purpose of this analysis is cost control. Consequently, this often results in medical bills being entered into a computer system with the sole purpose of paying less money to a provider.

Yes! We have compassionate team members standing by 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Call us at any time to discuss your PIP collection needs! 

Under the Massachusetts PIP Statute, “the injured person shall submit to physical examinations by physicians selected by the insurer.” To call a physician, hired by an insurance company, and who wants to continue to be hired by that insurance company, “independent” is clearly a misnomer.

Record reviews are the process by which an insurer provides medical records to a medical provider practicing under the same specialty as the treating provider. The reviewer is asked to opine whether the treatment contained in those records was accident-related and reasonable.

For years, many treating medical providers, upon receipt of a record review or IME report, would take great effort in drafting a rebuttal to the insurance company, explaining why their care of their patient was “reasonable and necessary” (again, “a good faith effort to ameliorate the patient’s pain”). The insurance adjuster, who rarely possesses any medical training, would either decide on their own whether they would “allow for” the treatment; or ask the record reviewer or IME physician whether upon reviewing the rebuttal their opinion changed. Obviously, rebuttals rarely worked, and if a provider was “lucky” they could reach an agreement for a percentage of what they were owed. 

Our clients do not write rebuttals. We are their rebuttal!