Search Site
Regulation 68 The Proposed Revisions To New Yorks No Fault Law
On behalf of Rubin & Licatesi, P.C. on Thursday, January 26, 2012.

Good old Regulation 68, enacted in 1974, in order to ensure that all reasonable and necessary medical treatment following a motor vehicle accident was paid for, which was revised in 2002, is once again up for revision. The original proposed revisions were released in November 2009; subsequently, a second proposed revision released for comment on March 3, 2011. As idealistic as ever, the Insurance Department vows that somehow these revisions will cause less confusion and less fraud.

According to the New York State insurance Department, these revisions come after “an intensive review of the Regulation by the Department’s Office of General Counsel and it’s Property Bureau, including meetings with representatives of insurers, health professionals, trial lawyers, health service providers, and other stakeholders. The aim is to help reduce fraud and abuse associated with no fault claims, while making the no fault system more user-friendly.” User friendly is one way of putting it, but anyone who routinely uses the no fault system knows that proposed regulations will only spawn a plethora of new issues to litigate/arbitrate.

The Insurance Department isn’t shying away from your comments however. They have set up an e-mail, where comments can be directly sent to this address: [email protected] . They also have a web page set up for comments on the revisions: .

Such issues addressed by the proposed revisions are a reformation of the claims process, combating overbilling and fee overcharging, renovation of the health service exam and exam under oath procedures, and of course to combat fraud.

As a medical provider, please go to and read all the proposed revisions. There are many changes that if put into effect, could impede your ability to be compensated for your services if not followed properly.

One example of a proposed change that could negatively affect providers is the proposed change to the verification process. As of now, providers are not required to respond to a verification request from the insurance carrier in a set period of time; whereas the insurance carrier is required to request said verification in a strictly upheld time period. Now, one of the proposed revisions is to hold providers to respond to a verification request within 90 days, a significant change that providers need to be aware of, as well as comment on.

Be sure to contact well-versed experienced attorneys such as those at Rubin & Licatesi, P.C. with any questions or concerns regarding Regulation 68 in its current state as well as the proposed revisions. Email: [email protected]

For more information: Call (516) 478-0237
By: Candice L. Deaner, Esq.

Verdicts & Settlements

Over $100 Million in Verdicts & Settlements For Our Clients

  • $8 Million

    Plaintiff sustained a series of fractures and other injuries to the right shin, heel and foot, requiring nailing of the right tibia with two proximal and two distal locking bolts, ultimately resulting in below-the-knee amputation

  • $3 Million

    Infant plaintiff sustained encephalopathy as result of DPT vaccination administered by NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation.

  • $1.7 Million

    Plaintiff was involved in a car accident resulting in multiple disc herniations requiring percutaneous fluoroscopic-guided epidural treatment and lumbar fusion laminectomy.

  • $1.3 Million

    47 year old male police officer injured as a result of surgical malpractice by an orthopedic surgeon resulting in an inability to work and permanent impairment of gait.

Watch Our Videos
Meet Our Team
    Nasaau County Bar Association
    Queens County Bar Association
  • ATLA
    Martindate Peer Review Rated
    Avvo Live Rating
    Avvo Live Reviews
    Avvo Clients Choice 2018
  • SuperLawyers
    US Union Network
    TNTL Top 100
    Top Attorneys NY Metro 2019
  • Nasaau County Bar Association
  • Queens County Bar Association
  • ABA
  • ATLA
  • Martindate Peer Review Rated
  • Avvo Live Rating
  • Avvo Live Reviews
  • Avvo Clients Choice 2018
Contact us

Quick Contact Form