We Defend you Against Nursing Home Collections

We defend families against nursing home collection lawsuits and protect your assets from seizure. Whether you're facing demands for unpaid resident bills, "responsible party" claims, or threats against your personal savings, we can help. We focus on defending against nursing home collections—from the initial lawsuit through judgment enforcement, including protection from wage garnishments and bank account freezes.

If you need help, complete this intake form.

​5 Winning Arguments Against A Nursing-Home Collection Lawsuit

1. No Legal Access to Non-Exempt Funds

Facts: Daughter signed admission agreement as "Responsible Party" with POA. Father's only income: $1,200/month Social Security and $800/month VA pension, both direct-deposited. No other assets except $2,000 savings account.

Winning Arguments:

• "Under Prospect Park Nursing Home, Inc. v. Goutier, liability requires proof that non-exempt funds were 'available to pay for care'"
• "Social Security (42 U.S.C. § 407) and VA benefits (38 U.S.C. § 5301) are exempt from legal process"
• "Plaintiff bears burden of proving non-exempt assets existed and were accessible"
• "Monthly income of $2,000 consists entirely of federally protected benefits"
• "Plaintiff must identify specific non-exempt funds that daughter had legal authority to access"

Key Evidence:

• Bank statements showing only exempt deposits
• Social Security/VA award letters
• POA document (showing limited authority over exempt funds)
• Absence of real property or investment accounts
• Complete asset disclosure showing no investments, real property, or other accounts

Why This Wins: Courts cannot impose liability for failing to pay with funds that are legally exempt from collection.

---

2. No Agency Relationship Existed

Facts: Adult son signed admission agreement during mother's emergency admission. He had no POA, no healthcare proxy, wasn't on any accounts. Nursing home staff said "someone has to sign for her to be admitted."

Winning Arguments:

• "Absent agency relationship, son cannot be bound by contract signed in representative capacity"
• "Under NY GOL § 5-1501, POA must be in writing - none exists here"
• "Plaintiff cannot establish privity of contract with non-agent"
• "Apparent authority requires reasonable reliance - facility knew or should have known son lacked legal authority"
• "Nursing home's statement 'someone has to sign' demonstrates they knew son wasn't the legal decision-maker"
• "Son's signature as 'Responsible Party' demonstrates he was not signing in individual capacity"
• "Admission under duress/emergency negates contract formation"

Key Evidence:

• Absence of any POA or guardianship documents
• Deposition testimony about emergency admission circumstances
• No evidence son ever controlled mother's funds
• Admission agreement showing signature as "Responsible Party" not individual capacity
• Nursing home's admission records showing no request for POA documentation
• Facility's own testimony that they required "someone" to sign
• No evidence facility ever asked about son's legal authority
• Mother's medical records showing she lacked capacity (supporting emergency circumstances)

Why This Wins: It is basic contract law. The facility cannot enforce agreement against someone who lacked authority to sign. The facility's own conduct (demanding "someone" sign without verifying authority) defeats any claim of reasonable reliance on apparent authority. Courts will not reward facilities that knowingly accept unauthorized signatures during family emergencies.

---

3. Statute of Limitations on Breach Claims

Facts: Resident admitted January 2018, private-paid through June 2018. Medicaid application denied July 2018. No payments made after June 2018. Resident died December 2019. Nursing home sued daughter in August 2024 for breach of "Responsible Party" duties.

Winning Arguments:

• "Six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213) bars claims for breaches occurring before August 2018"
• "Cause of action accrued when daughter allegedly failed to pay/apply for benefits"
• "Each alleged breach is separate cause of action - most are time-barred"
• "No tolling applies - plaintiff knew of non-payment contemporaneously"
• "The July 2018 Medicaid denial triggered any duty to pay - claim accrued over 6 years before suit"
• "Facility's monthly billing statements prove they knew of each 'breach' as it occurred"
• "Death in December 2019 did not restart or extend limitations period"

Key Evidence:

• Facility's own billing records showing monthly knowledge of non-payment from July 2018 forward
• Medicaid denial letter dated July 2018
• Death certificate
• Absence of any tolling agreement
• No demand letters or collection attempts between 2018-2024 (showing abandonment)
• Facility's continued provision of services despite non-payment (waiver argument)

Why This Wins: Clear-cut limitations defense. The six-year statute under CPLR 213 is calculated from when the breach occurred (July 2018), not from resident's death or some later date. The facility sat on its rights for over six years while having full knowledge of the non-payment. Even if some continuing duty existed, each month's non-payment was a separate breach, and all breaches before August 2018 are time-barred.

---

4. Federal Law Voids Guarantee Provisions

Facts: Admission agreement contains clause: "Responsible Party personally liable for any breach of this agreement, including failure to pay resident's bills." Daughter signed under pressure during father's emergency admission.

Winning Arguments:

• "42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii) prohibits requiring third-party guarantees"
• "42 C.F.R. § 483.15(a)(3) clarifies representative cannot incur 'personal financial liability'"
• "Illegal contract provisions are void under NY law"
• "Even 'breach of contract' claims that impose personal liability for payment violate federal law"
• "Facility's participation in Medicare/Medicaid requires compliance with federal prohibitions"

Key Evidence:

• Specific contract language imposing "personal liability" for payment
• Federal statutes and regulations
• CMS guidance on third-party liability
• Facility's Medicare/Medicaid provider agreement
• Facility's Medicare/Medicaid certification (showing they must follow federal rules)
• Evidence of duress: emergency admission, father needed immediate care
• Pattern of similar illegal clauses in facility's standard agreements

Note: Federal law specifically protects family members from being forced into personal payment guarantees. The facility cannot circumvent this protection by calling it a "breach of contract" claim when the substance is still making the daughter pay her father's bills. Courts that look past form to substance will void these provisions.

---

5. Facility's Negligence Caused Damages

Facts: Family submitted complete Medicaid application in March 2020. Facility's financial office failed to provide required documentation to Medicaid despite multiple requests. Application denied for missing facility paperwork. Family reapplied; retroactive coverage obtained eight months later.

Winning Arguments:

• "Facility cannot profit from own negligence in Medicaid process"
• "Comparative negligence reduces/eliminates any damages (CPLR Article 14-A)"
• "Resident was Medicaid-eligible throughout - facility's errors caused temporary denial"
• "Doctrine of mitigation - facility failed to minimize damages"
• "Eight months of unpaid bills directly traceable to facility's failure to submit required paperwork"
• "Retroactive approval proves resident qualified all along - only facility's negligence prevented payment"
• "Facility's duty to cooperate in Medicaid process is implied covenant in every admission agreement"

Key Evidence:

• Email chains documenting family's submissions
• Medicaid denial letter citing missing facility documentation
• Retroactive approval letter showing eligibility throughout
• DSS caseworker testimony about missing facility paperwork

Why This Wins: Establishes facility's fault as proximate cause of any unpaid bills.

​

Shielding Family Assets From Nursing-Home Judgments

Point	Controlling Authority	Take-away
Federal benefits remain exempt even after deposit	• 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (Social-Security anti-assignment) (anthonyjvignierlaw.com) • 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) (VA-benefit exemption) (uscode.house.gov) • Philpott v. Essex Cnty. Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (post-deposit SS funds untouchable) • Porter v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962) (same rule for VA funds).	No clause or lawsuit can compel use of Social-Security or VA dollars; they remain unreachable once in the account.
New York law reinforces the federal shield	• CPLR § 5205(l)(2) & (l)(3) (direct-deposit exemption) • 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 415.3(b)(1) (facility may not require a third-party guarantee)	State statute & regs add an extra layer; a nursing-home can’t contract around these exemptions.
“Responsible-party” liability exists only if the plaintiff traces non-exempt assets	• Prospect Park Nursing Home, Inc. v. Goutier, 12 Misc. 3d 1192(A) (Civ. Ct. Kings Cty. 2006) (facility must show funds “available and unprotected”) • Troy Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLC v. Naylor, 94 A.D.3d 1353 (3d Dep’t 2012) (must trace non-exempt resources)	If every dollar the daughter handled was exempt, the claim collapses as a matter of law.
A POA cannot override statutory exemptions or authorize illegal transfers	• -N.Y. GOL § 5-1502 I(14) – If the POA contains the routine “personal & family maintenance” power, the agent may keep making the principal’s customary gifts, but the total can’t exceed $5 000 per calendar year; anything more (or gifts to new recipients) needs a Statutory Gifts Rider under § 5-1514.• Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.02 (agent lacks authority to commit an illegal act)	Even a broad POA cannot lawfully divert exempt SS/VA funds; any contract term to the contrary is void.

New York Collection Cases by Nursing Homes

Third-Party Friend Cannot Be Held Liable for Nursing Home Debt Without Proof of Bills Sent During Agency Period

A nursing home sued a deceased resident's estate and her 78-year-old friend who served as power of attorney for over $21,000 in unpaid services. The friend signed admission documents and had POA, but the nursing home only sent bills after the resident's death—nearly a year later. The court dismissed all claims against the friend, finding that without allegations she received bills while serving as agent and had control over the resident's assets, there could be no breach of contract. The fraudulent conveyance claims failed because they contained only conclusory allegations tracking statutory language without any factual basis regarding asset transfers.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A third party with power of attorney cannot breach a contract to pay nursing home bills if no bills were presented during the agency period when they had control over the principal's assets.
2. Fraudulent conveyance claims under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 (constructive fraud) still require factual allegations beyond conclusory statements that merely track statutory language, even though they are not subject to CPLR § 3016(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.
3. Claims under DCL § 276 (actual fraud) must be pleaded with the same specificity required for fraud allegations under CPLR 3016(b), and conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Conclusion: The court's dismissal underscores that nursing homes must present bills to agents during the period of agency and cannot retroactively impose liability after the principal's death. Additionally, even constructive fraudulent conveyance claims require some factual basis beyond boilerplate allegations, preventing nursing homes from using lawsuits as fishing expeditions.

Citation: County of Monroe v. Estate of Patterson, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33296(U) (Sup. Ct. Monroe County Oct. 24, 2019).

Daughter with Power of Attorney Held Personally Liable for Breaching Agreement to Use Father's Assets for Nursing Home Care

A nursing home sued a resident's daughter who held power of attorney and had signed admission agreements as "Responsible Party," promising to use her access to the resident's funds to pay for his care. Despite the resident having monthly income of approximately $45,000 over two years, plus various assets including properties and bank accounts, the daughter instead used his income to maintain his empty house—paying for lawn service, cable TV, birdseed, and housecleaning—and for other family expenses like magazine subscriptions and charitable donations. The appellate court affirmed that the daughter breached her contractual obligations but remanded on damages, finding that her liability might be limited to the amount of assets actually available.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Agreements requiring a person with legal access to a resident's assets to use those funds for nursing home care are permissible under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act and do not constitute prohibited third-party guarantees (42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(5)(B)(ii)).
2. A responsible party who signs a nursing home admission agreement in their individual capacity (not on the signature line for the resident) accepts personal responsibility for the contractual obligations, even if they add "POA" after their signature.
3. Using a nursing home resident's income for maintaining an empty residence or paying family expenses instead of nursing home bills constitutes breach of a responsible party agreement, regardless of any claimed obligations under a family trust.

Conclusion: This decision clarifies that family members with access to a resident's funds can be held personally liable for misusing those assets, but their exposure is limited to the value of assets they actually controlled—protecting them from unlimited personal liability while ensuring nursing homes can recover from available resident resources.

Citation: Troy Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Naylor, 94 A.D.3d 1353 (3d Dept. 2012).

Designated Representative Without Present Access to Funds Cannot Be Held Liable Under Nursing Home Admission Agreement

A nursing home sued to recover unpaid charges from a friend who signed an admission agreement as “Designated Representative” despite lacking a power of attorney at the time of admission. More than a year after suit commenced, the purported representative obtained a power of attorney—yet there was no evidence he ever controlled or received the resident’s funds. The court held that, under 42 USC § 1396r(c)(5)(B)(ii) and 10 NYCRR § 415.3(b)(1), liability requires both legal authority over the resident’s assets and proof that those assets were available to pay for care. Absent such proof, the admission agreement could not be enforced against him.

Key Legal Principles:

• A third party’s signature on a nursing home admission agreement does not create personal liability unless the signer possesses legal access to the resident’s income or resources at the time payment is due.

• Under federal and state nursing home regulations, requiring payment from a representative is permitted only if that representative has both “legal access” and “control over the resident’s assets” (42 USC § 1396r[c][5][B][ii]; 10 NYCRR § 415.3[b][1]).

• Absent evidence that exempt funds (e.g., Medicaid budget, Social Security) were “available to pay for care,” a breach-of-contract claim cannot stand—even if a power of attorney is subsequently executed.

Conclusion: Because the representative neither held a power of attorney at admission nor ever controlled the resident’s funds, there was no breach of the admission agreement and no damages. The decision underscores that nursing homes must prove both the existence of binding authority and the availability of non-exempt assets before enforcing third-party obligations.

Citation:Prospect Park Nursing Home, Inc. v. Goutier, 12 Misc 3d 1192(A), 824 N.Y.S.2d 770 (Civ. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2006).

Nursing Home Cannot Hold Grandson Liable for Grandmother's Care Costs Without Proof of Legal Control Over Her Assets

A nursing home sought to recover unpaid charges from a resident's grandson who signed the admission agreement as "Legally Authorized Representative" but never obtained formal documentation of legal authority over his grandmother's finances. The court denied the nursing home's motion for default judgment, finding that federal and state regulations prohibit requiring third-party guarantees as a condition of admission and permit facilities only to require individuals with legal access to a resident's resources to provide payment from those resources without incurring personal liability. Since the nursing home presented no evidence that the grandson had power of attorney, guardianship, or any legal control over his grandmother's assets or income, it could not hold him personally liable for her unpaid NAMI (Net Available Monthly Income) charges totaling $18,574.53.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii)) and state regulations (10 NYCRR § 415.3(b)(1)) prohibit nursing homes from requiring third-party guarantees of payment as a condition of admission to or continued stay in a facility.
2. A nursing home may only require an individual who has legal access to a resident's income or resources to sign a contract to provide payment from those resources without incurring personal financial liability.
3. To hold a third party liable for a nursing home resident's unpaid charges, the facility must demonstrate that the third party had actual legal control over or access to the resident's assets and income through power of attorney, guardianship, or similar legal authority.

Conclusion: The critical takeaway is that merely signing a nursing home admission agreement as a resident's representative, without having formal legal authority over the resident's finances, does not create personal liability for the resident's unpaid charges. Nursing homes must prove the third party had actual legal access to the resident's resources before imposing liability.

Citation: Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. v. Lang, 16 Misc. 3d 1138(A), 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51727(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2007).

Nursing Home Cannot Hold Spouse Liable Under Doctrine of Necessaries Without Proving Services Were Provided on Her Credit

A nursing home sued a husband for unpaid care and also sued his wife under the common-law doctrine of necessaries and for tortious interference with contract. The facility failed to prove any essential elements: that it provided care based on the wife's credit, that she could afford to pay, or that the husband couldn't satisfy the debt from his own resources. Evidence showed the husband believed his insurance would cover the services as it had previously. The wife tried to help obtain bank records for Medicaid at the facility's request but couldn't afford the bank charges. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of all claims against the wife, finding no evidence she intentionally thwarted payment efforts or that her actions caused the Medicaid denial.

Key Legal Principles:

1. To hold a spouse liable under the doctrine of necessaries, a nursing home must prove: (a) services were provided based on the spouse's credit, (b) the spouse could afford to pay, and (c) the primary debtor resident was unable to satisfy the debt from their own resources.
2. Tortious interference with contract requires proof that the defendant intentionally prevented the nursing home from obtaining payment and that but for the defendant's actions, payment would have been received (such as through Medicaid approval).
3. Good faith efforts to assist with documentation requests, even if unsuccessful due to financial constraints, do not constitute tortious interference with the nursing home's payment collection efforts.

Conclusion: This decision establishes that nursing homes cannot use the doctrine of necessaries as a backdoor to impose liability on spouses without meeting strict factual prerequisites, and that inability to afford bank fees for documentation is not tortious interference—providing important protections for spouses facing collection actions.

Citation: Jopal Bronx, LLC v. Montilla, 206 A.D.3d 426 (1st Dept. 2022).

Misleading Admission and Guarantee Practices Void as Unfair Trade

Close relatives signed extensive admission and payment guarantee forms under duress and without explanation, unaware that federal and state law prohibited requiring third-party payment guarantees as a condition of admission. The Court of Appeal held that a nursing home’s proposed guaranty agreement was deceptive because it failed to disclose that prospective guarantors already enjoyed notification rights under Medicare, Medicaid, and California regulations, and that solicitation practices—hastily presenting stacks of unsigned papers—created triable issues of unfair and deceptive conduct under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Key Legal Principles:

• A nursing home may solicit voluntary third-party guarantors but cannot require their signatures as a condition of admission; any agreement must clearly state this prohibition and not obscure existing statutory protections.

• Under both federal (42 U.S.C. § 1395i-3(c)(5)(A)(ii); 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii)) and California law (Welf. & Inst. Code § 14110.8(b); Health & Saf. Code § 1599.65(b)), third-party guarantors are entitled to at least the same discharge and nonpayment notices a resident receives, and any form failing to disclose these rights can be deemed deceptive.

• Presentation practices that rush family members—often under emotional stress—into signing lengthy documents without explanation violate the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) when they create a likelihood of consumer deception, regardless of whether a written guaranty appears technically compliant.

Conclusion: Because the proposed guaranty omitted critical information about existing notice rights and was presented in a misleading manner, it violated California’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive business practices and cannot be enforced; the matter must be remanded for trial on these issues.

Citation: Podolsky v. FirstHealthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

Nursing Home Responsible Party Agreement: Personal Liability Limited to Patient's Assets Under Party's Control

A nursing home successfully stated a breach of contract claim against a son who signed as "responsible party" for his mother's care, where the agreement required him to pay from the patient's assets under his control, but the court dismissed claims against a second son who never signed the agreement. The key facts were that Ernest Ast signed the nursing home agreement both for himself as responsible party and purported to sign for his brother Mark Ast, but Mark denied ever agreeing to or ratifying the contract.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Responsible Party Liability Scope: A "responsible party" under a nursing home agreement is obligated to pay for patient care only from the patient's assets over which they have control, not from their own personal resources.
2. Contract Formation Requirements: A party cannot be held liable under a contract they neither signed nor ratified, even if another party purported to sign on their behalf without authorization.
3. Duplicative Claims Dismissal: When a valid written contract governs the subject matter, claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, and fraud that arise from the same facts as the breach of contract claim are duplicative and must be dismissed.

Conclusion: This case establishes that nursing home responsible party agreements create limited liability tied to the party's actual control over patient assets, and unauthorized signatures cannot bind non-consenting parties to contractual obligations.

Citation: Jewish Home Lifecare v. Ast, 2015 NY Slip Op 31251(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2015).

Self-Settled Spendthrift Trusts: No Asset Protection Against Settlor's Creditors

A nursing home successfully sought summary judgment to reach assets in a self-settled discretionary trust established by a deceased resident to recover unpaid care costs. The critical facts were that the resident created the trust naming herself as both settlor and beneficiary, and the trustee refused to invade the trust principal to pay the nursing home bills despite having discretionary authority to do so under the trust terms.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Self-Settled Trust Rule: When a beneficiary of a spendthrift trust is also the settlor, creditors can reach the maximum amount the trustee could pay to or apply for the settlor-beneficiary's benefit, regardless of the trustee's discretionary refusal to make distributions.
2. Distinction from Third-Party Trusts: Unlike trusts where the beneficiary is not the settlor, self-settled trusts provide no creditor protection because creditors' rights are not limited by the trustee's exercise of discretion.
3. Intent and Solvency Irrelevant: The settlor's lack of fraudulent intent in creating the trust and the settlor's solvency at the time of trust creation do not prevent creditors from reaching trust assets.

Conclusion:

This case establishes that self-settled spendthrift trusts cannot shield assets from the settlor's creditors, as creditor protection extends only to trusts created by third parties for the beneficiary's benefit.

Citation: United Presbyterian House at Syosset, Inc. v. Lincks, 2003 WL 262484 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County Feb. 11, 2003).

N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10 § 415.3 - Residents' rights

(b) Admission rights. The nursing home shall protect and promote the rights of residents and potential residents by establishing and implementing policies which ensure that the facility:

1. shall not require a third-party guarantee of payment to the facility as a condition of admission, or expedited admission, or continued stay in the facility.
   • Explanation: The nursing home cannot force a friend or family member (a "third party") to promise to pay the resident's bills with their own money or assets in order for the resident to be admitted, admitted more quickly, or to continue living there.
2. shall not charge, solicit, accept or receive, in addition to any amount otherwise required to be paid by third-party payors, any gift, money, donation or other consideration as a precondition of admission, expedited admission or continued stay in the facility except that arrangements for prepayment for basic services not exceeding three months shall not be precluded by this paragraph.
   • Explanation: The nursing home cannot demand or accept extra payments, "gifts," or donations beyond what's owed (e.g., by Medicaid, insurance, or the resident's own NAMI) as a requirement for admission or continued stay. The only exception is that a resident can choose to prepay for up to three months of their own basic services.
3. shall not require residents or potential residents to waive their rights to Medicare or Medicaid benefits.
   • Explanation: The nursing home cannot make residents or those applying for admission give up their legal right to apply for or receive benefits from Medicare or Medicaid.
4. shall not require oral or written assurance that residents or potential residents are not eligible for, or will not apply for, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.
   • Explanation: The nursing home cannot demand that residents (or potential residents) state, either verbally or in writing, that they are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid or that they promise not to apply for these benefits.
5. shall obey all pertinent State and local laws which prohibit discrimination against individuals entitled to Medicaid benefits.
   • Explanation: The nursing home must follow all New York State and local laws that forbid unfair treatment or denial of services to people just because they are eligible for Medicaid.
6. may require an individual who has legal access to a resident's income or resources available to pay for facility care, to sign a contract, without incurring personal financial liability, to provide the facility payment from the resident's income or resources.
   • Explanation: If someone (like a person with Power of Attorney) has legal authority over a resident's money and assets, the nursing home can ask that person to sign an agreement promising to use the resident's funds to pay for the resident's care. Importantly, this agreement does not make the person signing personally responsible for paying the bill from their own money.
7. may charge a resident who is eligible for Medicaid for items and services the resident has requested and received, and that are not specified at the time of admission as included in basic nursing home services, so long as the facility gives proper notice of the availability and cost of these items and services to the resident and does not condition the resident's admission or continued stay on the request for and receipt of such additional items and services.
   • Explanation: If a Medicaid-eligible resident asks for specific extra items or services that are not part of the standard care package (e.g., a private phone line, beauty salon services), the nursing home can charge for them. However, the facility must first inform the resident about these optional services and their costs, and cannot make getting these extras a requirement for admission or staying in the facility.
8. may solicit, accept or receive a charitable, religious or philanthropic contribution from an organization or from a person unrelated to the resident, or potential resident, only to the extent that the contribution is not a condition of admission, expedited admission, or continued stay in the facility.
   • Explanation: The nursing home is allowed to ask for and accept donations from organizations or individuals who are not related to any specific resident or potential resident. However, these donations cannot be tied to any resident's admission, quicker admission, or their ability to continue living in the facility.

Nursing-Home Collection Firms in New York

Abrams Fensterman, LLP
Addresses:

• 3 Dakota Drive, Suite 300, Lake Success, NY 11042

• 1 MetroTech Center, Suite 1701, Brooklyn, NY 11201

• 81 Main Street, Suite 400, White Plains, NY 10601

• 54 State Street, Suite 803, Albany, NY 12207

• 2280 East Avenue, First Floor, Rochester, NY 14610

Types of Cases: Handles health care collection and reimbursement recovery, including nursing home debts, Medicaid spend-downs, managed care, no-fault, and workers’ compensation collections.

Cona Elder Law

Address: 225 Broadhollow Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747 (publicly available)

Types of Cases: Represents nursing homes and long-term care facilities in collection actions, Medicaid eligibility disputes, and guardianship-related recovery (based on public sources and prior context).

Underberg & Kessler LLP

Address: 285 Delaware Avenue, Suite 118, Buffalo, NY 14202

Types of Cases: Health care law, creditors’ rights law, estate & trust litigation, business and civil litigation.

Cullen and Dykman LLP

Address: One Battery Park Plaza, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10004

Types of Cases:

• Health Care Practice: Manage billing disputes and provider reimbursement matters

• Guardianships/Elder Law: Covers Medicaid applications, spend-down planning, guardianship, and related legal processes