We are defending a high-exposure birth injury case involving a neurologically-impaired child. The court has suggested that the child qualifies for the MIF, but plaintiffs counsel, an experienced practitioner, continues to oppose MIF inclusion. The stated rationale is concern over the MIFs solvency, but we’re skeptical thats the real driver. The continued resistance is making potential settlement discussions difficult.
Has anyone run into similar resistance? Any thoughts about what might actually be motivating it would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
[cid:image001.png@01DCDF08.572E8070]
John Leifert
Of Counsel
4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 203
White Plains, New York 10604
Phone: (914) 305-8639
jleifert@fullertonbeck.com
NOTE: All case-related documents will be served via email and filed via e-filing. If service via regular mail is necessary and required, please contact the sender. Otherwise, we will assume you acknowledge and consent to the terms above. This e-mail message (including attachments) is subject to attorney-client privilege and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. This e-mail may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521, which provides criminal penalties for your use of this email without permission. This message may contain Protected Health Information covered under HIPAA Rules and HITECH Standards including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements of the HIPAA Security rule in 45 C.F.R. Sections 164.308, 164.310,164.312, and 164.316, including any amendments thereto. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy.