People of Focus: Lawyers & Disorder True Report

From Digging Holes To Falling In: Charles J. Diven Jr. Esq

Continued

"And that if the defendant's medical insurance coverage under his wife's group medical insurance plan has been cancelled," (which it had been due to the deft work of both our Laurel and Hardy litigators) "she will immediately reinstate it and provide proof of that reinstatement or its continuation." (To my knowledge proof was not provided until July of 2006.) "And the wife will in fact cooperate with the husband post-divorce for him to avail himself of whatever benefits he may have under the provisions know as Cobra…"

Click here to see the actual document as scanned from the filed divorce decree.

That was the Law, now the Disorder

It took from May 4 to May 30 for the opposing party to respond. It took my relieving my not so world-class lawyer of his responsibilities and a letter to the Judge to get Mr. Diven's office to respond. I assure you Mr. Diven was like a cat with a mouse in his mouth over the knowledge I had no lawyer. In actuality, the man was left chewing on a foot and reputation sandwich.

In short, his client's company had switched carriers from Oxford to Aetna in April of '06. He asserted that his client has indeed kept me active and informed Aetna to send me notification and cards and that I was liable to keep paying for the insurance, which up to that point was paid up by me through June of '06.  He continued on to claim that his client bore no responsibility for notifying me of the transition. I have read the transcript and surely the "and the phrase " or its continuation" clearly makes his claim an outright violation of the decree. Obviously, Mr. Diven likes to use creativity to reinterpret the law, as he seems fit. Essentially, I was denied access to the health insurance by their actions and this continued until July 08 of that year. Aetna had verified and supplied confirmation the insurance card was finally ordered on July 5, 2006.  Mr. Diven also went on to deny that his client had to comply with another provision of the agreement not being addressed at this time.  The pair would appear to have be acting out more as accomplices than lawyer and client.  .   

The favor

Mr. Diven said he would mail a letter to Aetna and correct the insurance problem the next day. I have a copy of that letter and you can click here to view. I am being discrete with the Plaintiff's name this installment. A question Mr. Diven directly addressed was, "If I am to keep paying for the policy shouldn't I be informed of the cost."  He said that his client was not obligated to give me that information her employer was. The answer is in direct violation of New York Insurance regulations as well as Aetna's policy directives and I will explain these points in depth this later. I will point out that the person of concern's employer refused to give out any information and put the onus back on her.

Points of legal contention

One week later, Aetna customer service denied having any such letter on record. I was told such a letter would not be enforced because my still lingering wife had put nothing on record about assigning power of attorney. A fact, which Mr. Diven has to have been aware of at the time of our conversation. The person also noted all insurance documents and card were mailed to my still not yet ex-wife's address months prior. They company had no alternate mailing address on record for me. Since, my not yet ex was the primary on the account she had received directions informing her it was her responsibility for dissemination of all insurance documentation and materials to those listed under her policy.  In addition, though I was listed Aetna could not accept any information changes from me.  The primary insurer on the policy is the only one who could alter any and all information.  In effect, my not yet former spouse had illegally withheld the ability to use the insurance from me while collecting payment and Charles J. Diven, Jr not only knowingly aided her in doing so, but also contributed to promoting the continuation of unethical action. 

More legal points

I know Mr. Diven is well-schooled attorney. His schooling may not exactly have encompassed upholding his position as an officer of the court. As I was aware at the time of our May conversation, New York has rules and regulation to abide by in regards with insurance.  As Mr. Diven should have known according to New York regulations, he and his client were in violation as his office as well as his client handled Postal Money Orders for payment. In fact, portions of the payments were written out to both attorney and client.  A person in New York accepting money, which is to be used toward providing insurance coverage, qualifies under the directive that deems them an unlicensed agent. The regulation states such agents are responsible for acting in accordance of all the rules and regulations of a licensed insurer agent. (Next) (Page 1)