.

Matthew Gray is a member of the Casualty Department, with multiple years of experience focusing his practice on defending numerous insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection claims. Matthew is also a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has experience conducting Examinations Under Oaths/Depositions. Matthew also has expansive experience with motion practice, declaratory judgments and trial preparation/management. Matthew has played a key role in establishing the SIU Dec Action team, guiding and collaborating with his colleagues in the drafting of several Declaratory Judgement (DJ) actions.

Matthew has experience with the litigation, mediation and arbitration of matters in multiple practice areas. Specifically, Matthew focuses on fraud investigation, primarily dealing with evaluating both medical provider fraud and intentional/staged losses. Matthew has had great success for his clients and has been often recognized for his successful in both the Court room, as well as in arbitration matters.

In addition to personal injury protection claims, Matthew handles insurance defense litigation for bodily injury cases. He defends premises liability and automobile liability suits, as well as first-party property damage matters.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Matthew began his practice in No-Fault at a boutique law firm, where he managed hundreds of PIP matters. Additionally, he developed experience litigating and arbitrating all aspects of insurance defense claims matters.

Matthew earned his juris doctor from the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in 2015. While at law school, he served as an ambassador and then, Secretary of the Student Bar Association, as well as President of the Columbian Lawyers' Association. He also was a competing member of Touro Law Center's Mock Trial Team. Matthew was named a Touro Public Interest Law Fellow in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Matthew earned a B.A. in English and a M.A. in English Literature, with a specialization in Dramatic Literature from St. John's University.

He is admitted in the state of New York.

    • Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (J.D., 2015)
    • St. John's University
      • M.A., 2012; B.A., magna cum laude, 2011
    • New York, 2015
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Insurance Law (2026-2027)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2027)
    • New York Metro Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2026)
    • Successfully defended, submitted post-hearing arguments and secured dismissal of a New York no-fault arbitration matter. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $361,601.62, claiming our client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment for a series of treatments rendered while hospitalized, post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly nor timely denied, therefore payment of the claims was overdue. However, We successfully argued at the arbitration hearing, that herein, Applicant’s client failed to provide the requisite statutorily required medical assignment of benefits form, assigned the hospital the right to sue on behalf of the injured party. After arguments were heard by the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator ordered post-hearing submissions to be submitted by both sides, to be submitted within the week. We researched, drafted and submitted said post-hearing submission, resulting in the Arbitrator ruling in our client’s favor, and thereby dismissing the matter based on the Applicant’s total failure to submit the requisite form, saving the client hundreds of thousands of dollars.  
    • Successfully secured full dismissal of a New York no-fault litigation matter. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Suffolk County's 3rd District Court in the total amount of $14,999.99, claiming our insurance company client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical billing.  The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the same matter having been successfully argued and won in arbitration in June of 2021. However, after successful arguments and motion practice, and without significant opposition by plaintiff's counsel, the matter was dismissed, in full, by the court, which found that both res judicata and collateral estoppel applied. Therefore, the court found in full favor of our client and dismissed the suit and its accompanying complaint.
    • Successfully appealed, argued and obtained a full dismissal of joint arbitration matters filed against our client, when remanded to the lower arbitration forum. The applicant filed two, separate, yet related, arbitration matters claiming our client, an insurance carrier, owed them for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was supposedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 25, 2018, and sought payment for medical treatment provided from December 20, 2018, through April 5, 2019. Applicant's position was that payment was owed as the independent medical examination that found a lack of medical necessity was improper and weak, and because the policy of insurance was not yet exhausted. At the lower forum, the applicant was successful due to the arbitrator's misapplication and misinterpretation of the NYS No-Fault Regulations. However, on Master Appeal the Master Arbitrator found in our clients favor after the submission of briefs and remanded the hearing to the lower forum for an evidentiary hearing before a different arbitrator. That arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims on both matters.
    • Successfully defended an arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. The applicant filed an arbitration matter claiming our client owed him for the unpaid medical bills of the claimant, in the total amount of $20,772.99. The claimant was purportedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 12, 2016, and sought payment for medical treatments/surgery provided to the claimant on January 11, 2018. It was argued that our client owed the applicant's client for the medical services, despite New York state being the improper venue for hearing such a claim. The policy of insurance was written in Pennsylvania, the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, and the claimant lived in Pennsylvania. The provider of the medical services, the applicant, as well as the medical facility where the services were rendered were located in New Jersey. There was no apparent connection to the State of New York, other than the fact that the surgeon performing the surgery maintains an office there. The arbitrator agreed that this single contact with the was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the New York State No-Fault system to adjudicate these no-fault claims in the State of New York. As such, the arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims, in its entirety.
    • Successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal in an Arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. A surgical center in New Jersey filed an arbitration matter in the amount of $217,370.39.15, claiming our client owed it for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 15, 2017 and sought payment for medical treatment. The surgical center's position was that the entire amount was owed as it was not properly paid upon the initial submission of the billing to our client. However, after arguments were presented at the time of the arbitration hearing, our client’s policy of insurance was found to be completely and properly exhausted. Therefore, the Arbitrator found in full favor of our client, and denied the Applicant's entire $217,370.39.15 claim.

Results

View all

Successfully Fully Discontinued a New York No-Fault Action

We were successful in having a New York No-Fault (PIP) action fully discontinued, with prejudice. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $25,805.85, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and was processed/handled in full compliance with the applicable medical fee schedule(s). While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations and arguments, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full discontinuance of the matter, with prejudice.

Dismissal Obtained in a Medical Billings Claim Matter

We obtained full dismissal in a medical billings claim against our insurance carrier client in a New York No-Fault/PIP Action. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $22,610.79, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and denied on similar grounds. While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full dismissal of the matter. Thereby, our client was absolved from any fiscal liability in this action.

Thought Leadership

View all

SIU Spotlight

The Wild West on the East Coast: How the Fix Known as “No-Fault” Turned New York Into the O.K. Corral

July 1, 2024

Howdy! Did y’all come to hear about the virtues and triumphs of New York State No-Fault? Well sit on down and warm yourself by the fire, while I tell you the story of how a new little law gave way to greed, corruption and the white knights, known as Defense Counsel! Introduced in 1974, New York State’s No-Fault insurance system, controlled under Regulation 68 or 11 NYCRR Part 65, otherwise known as “the Regs,” quickly became the foundation of how auto accidents were dealt with and how compensation was disturbed. The Regs were meant to provide quick and efficient coverage for medical expenses, lost wage, and other such claims for reimbursement post-auto accident: all without the need for drawn-out legal battles. However, over the decades since its inception, and with the many amendments to the Regs, multiple dusty trails for deceptive practices have been uncovered. Originally what was intended as a streamlined method to process claims and have parties taken care of has become a standoff of the highest order. No-Fault law was created with certain tenets in mind which aim for the swift processing of claims. Two such tenets are that (1) claims be processed with haste and (2) the parties involved work together, amicably. While the basic and establishing principle of No-Fault law was always to ensure that auto accident victims received timely compensation for medical bills, etc., those who have taken on the practice seem to break into one of two groups: the lawmen who try to protect the public (Defense Counsel) and the outlaws trying to disturb the peace (Plaintiff’s Counsel). While it may be true that those seeking medical treatment are oft seen and treated without haste or worry, the trouble starts when the bad eggs from the medical field roll into town, enlisting Plaintiff’s Counsel firms to perpetrate their nefarious plans. For every provider properly billing and treating patients, you will find a bad actor hiding in the herd, causing chaos and frustration throughout. One may ask themselves, “But, how can just a few bad actors affect an industry?” In the simplest of terms, any Defense Counsel worth their boot leather would say, “The premiums.” You see, it is our job to protect our clients’ interests. When our job is done well, we are able, as Defense Counsel, as lawmen, to keep the bad providers out of our town. By analyzing the cases we are assigned, and by recognizing the tell-tale signs of fraud and overbilling, we protect our clients from paying out claims they would not otherwise have to; thus, saving them in exposure. This is repaid to the good citizens of our settlement, to those who enlist the protection of the insurance carriers, by allowing them to have affordable premiums and, in turn, allows them to feel protected by the coverages they pay for. While No-Fault may have been started with good intentions, it has taken a handful of bad eggs, acting with greed in mind, to try and exploit the entire system. For as good as Defense Counsel may be, those who seek to defraud our clients are just as skillful. Our adversaries know how, and when, to file suit against the insurance carriers. They know in what venue and in what order to file their suits. They have adapted to the amendments in the Regs, learned each carrier’s style of doing business, and they know how, and when, to best overload each carrier. They know that they can file a case on the last day before the statute of limitations (six years from when the claim accrues) and still have many years before any court will take up the case. These methods cost the carriers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, resulting in higher premiums and a lower quality of medical care.  On one side, the bad-acting providers, seeking to force cases to trial, overburdening the carriers and courts with superfluous motion practice or, even as insidious, failing to respond to Defense Counsel’s requests to resolve the matter in a timely fashion. The other side, the Defense Counsel, tired, ever-fighting, working to make the town safe for those just seeking a better quality of auto insurance coverage. Effectively, we are locked in a daily standoff. However, it does feel like a victory whenever we can resolve a case. We close a case and get a little closer to what No-Fault is really about. Matthew is a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has vast experience conducting Examinations Under Oath/Depositions.   SIU Spotlight, Issue 1, Vol. 1, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.