[App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists]

Was this a dare or an oversight

On December 18, 2013 the Appellate Division, Second Department decided Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 08430 [2nd Dept. 2013]. In short, the Appellate Division held that a no-fault Plaintiff was not required to establish that its bills was a business record under CPLR 4518 to prove its prima facie case.

On January 24, 2014, in Horton Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50116(U) [App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2014] the Appelalte Term decided an appeal where the plaintiff's motion was unopposed. The Appellate Term held "Upon a review of the record, we are in agreement with the Civil Court's determination that the affidavit by plaintiffs' billing manager in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment failed to comply with CPLR 4518 (see Dan Med. P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006])"

Of note, the reasoning in Dan Med was rejected by the Appelalte Division in Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.

On February 5, 2014, the Appellate Division decided New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v QBE Ins. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 00639 [2nd Dept. 2014]. It held: "A medical provider is not required, as part of its prima facie showing, to demonstrate the admissibility of its billing records or to prove the truth of their content under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.,AD3d, 2013 NY Slip Op 08430, [2d Dept 2013])."

While the Horton decsion could have been an oversight, it also could have been an attempt to somehow distinguish Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.. But if that were the case New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v QBE Ins. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 00639 [2nd Dept. 2014] put that to bed. But–and im not saying that this is the case–what if the Appellate Term (or any court for that matter) refused to follow precedent? What is the remedy? Recusal? Disband the Appellate Term–the Appellate Term would not exist but for the Appellate Division's say so. That, however, is not a remedy for a party. Should a party request recusal of an entire Appellate Term? I haven't seen that happen oustide of pro se cases.

More of the no-fault

Flatlands Acupuncture, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 2011 NY Slip Op 21133 (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved, by order to show cause, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The Civil Court granted the motion, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A defendant moving for dismissal on statute of limitations grounds bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired (see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]). The time within which an action must be commenced is computed "from the time the cause of action accrued to the time the claim is interposed" (CPLR 203 [a]). In this case, the claim was interposed when the summons and complaint were filed on August 29, 2007 (CCA 400) and not, as defendant alternatively claims, on August 3, 2007 (the date of the summons and complaint) or on November 28, 2007 (the date of service on the New York State Department of Insurance). The parties agree that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is applicable to the instant case (CPLR 213 [2]; see Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]). Consequently, the statute of limitations bars any claim that accrued prior to August 29, 2001.

In order to make its prima facie showing, defendant was required, inter alia, to establish the date when the cause of action accrued (see Swift v New York Med. Coll., 25 AD3d 686 [2006]), i.e., when plaintiff possessed "a legal right to demand payment" (Matter of Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 198 AD2d 418, 420 [1993]). In the no-fault context, the cause of action accrues when payment of no-fault benefits becomes "overdue" (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; see also Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 214 [1987]; New Era Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 18 Misc 3d 139[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50353[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

Upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), a court must take the allegations in the complaint as true and resolve all inferences in favor of the plaintiff (see Island ADC, Inc., 49 AD3d 815; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913 [2008]). While plaintiff did not explicitly set forth in its complaint the date when each claim form was submitted or when each claim sought therein accrued, it averred that the accident occurred "on or about October 23, 2000," that the claim forms in question were "timely submitted to the Defendant," and that defendant "did not timely deny" the claims "nor did it timely request verification." In moving to dismiss, defendant argued that even if all of plaintiff's assertions are true, the action is untimely.

Defendant was required to "either pay or deny the claims in whole or in part" within 30 days after the claim forms were received (see former Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65.15 [g] [3]).

There are, therefore, two methods to compute the accrual date in the case at bar: the first is measured, in part, from the last date on which written notice of the accident must be given to the insurer, and the second is measured, in part, from the date the services were rendered. Since the accident occurred on or about October 23, 2000, and the action was commenced on August 29, 2007, it is clear that plaintiff does not benefit by using the first computation method.

Using the second computation method to ultimately arrive at the accrual dates, the calculations begin by determining when, at the latest, a claim form was required to be submitted for each service rendered. We note that the dates of the services for which plaintiff sought reimbursement ranged from October 27, 2000 through April 24, 2001. Plaintiff had 180 days from the date each service was rendered to timely submit a claim seeking reimbursement therefor, and defendant had 30 days from its receipt to either pay or deny such claim. Consequently, accepting the truth of plaintiff's allegations that it timely submitted the claims and that defendant did not timely deny them, the accrual date, or the date that payment of no-fault benefits became overdue for each service for which reimbursement was sought, was, at the very latest, 210 days after each service was rendered, and plaintiff was required to bring its action within six years thereafter (CPLR 213 [2]). Accordingly, since this action was commenced on August 29, 2007, plaintiff was barred from seeking reimbursement for services rendered more than six years and 210 days prior to August 29, 2007. Upon a review of the complaint, we find that, while defendant's motion to dismiss was properly granted as to the earlier claims, defendant did not meet its initial burden of demonstrating that the action was untimely with respect to the March 8, 2001 claim for $540 (dates of service 02/01/01 – 02/26/01), the April 6, 2001 claim for $630 (dates of service 03/02/01 – 03/31/01), and the May 8, 2001 claim for $540 (dates of service 04/03/01 – 04/24/01). Although the dissenting Justice points to the fact that some of the claim forms submitted to defendant were "date stamped" as having been received by defendant's claims management company on a certain date, and that such date should therefore represent the date from which the accrual of the cause of action could be computed, in the absence of an affidavit of defendant's claims representative or of someone with personal knowledge of defendant's standard practice and procedure explaining when and by whom such documents were date-stamped, we are not inclined to state definitively that a particular claim form was actually received by defendant on the date stamped and that such date would therefore represent the date from which to measure the accrual date. While under some circumstances,, a date stamped on a document might be used to contradict the assertions made by a party offering such document, under the circumstances presented herein, we find no basis, as the dissenting Justice apparently does, to give defendant movant the benefit of using the date stamped on the documents in question in order to bolster defendant's position. Indeed, a party could readily backdate any document to give the impression that is was received on a certain date were we not to require said party to attest to the underlying facts surrounding the stamping of the document. Furthermore, even if we were to consider such stamped document as indicative of the date of its receipt, we note that there is no date stamped on the March 8, 2001 claim for $540 (dates of service 02/01/01 – 02/26/01). Accordingly, in our opinion, the order should be modified to the extent indicated.

We note that plaintiff's argument that it was error for defendant to proceed by way of an order to show cause and for the Civil Court to sign the order to show cause is without merit. Nor is there merit to plaintiff's contention that defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for the exhibits attached to its motion papers, since it was proper for defense counsel to use his affirmation as the vehicle for the submission of the annexed documents in support of the relief requested (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]).

Note the dissent.

Urban Radiology, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50601(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

Defendant denied all of the claims at issue on the ground that the assignors had failed to attend scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). In order for defendant to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment based on the assignors' failure to appear at scheduled EUOs, defendant had to demonstrate that its initial and follow-up requests for verification were timely mailed (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b]; § 65-3.6 [b]) and establish, by an affidavit of one with personal knowledge, that the assignors failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Advanced Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51023[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted the affirmation of an attorney employed by the law office that defendant hired to schedule and conduct the EUOs. This affirmation, however, failed to establish a prima facie showing since it did not describe the law office's standard practices and procedures used to ensure that the verification requests were properly addressed and mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Advanced Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51023[U]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

St. Dominick Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50609(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits by personally serving defendant via mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that process had not been properly served. In its moving papers, defendant asserted that since it had not signed the acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and complaint and returned it to plaintiff within 30 days of receiving it, plaintiff was required to serve defendant in another manner and had failed to do so. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff's attorney stated, among other things, that defendant should be compelled to sign the acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and complaint. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion.

Since defendant did not sign and return the acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and complaint, service of process was not effectuated pursuant to CPLR 312-a, and no personal jurisdiction was acquired (Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]; see Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC, 71 AD3d 957 [2010]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50617(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

Since plaintiff and its assignors were aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle in which the assignors had been passengers at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52586[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Dr. Abakin, D.C., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52186[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). As plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle, the judgment is reversed, the order entered August 20, 2008 denying MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, MVAIC's motion is granted and plaintiff's cross motion is denied.

All County, LLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee of Alternative Consulting and Examinations (ACE), which had been hired by defendant to schedule the IMEs. That affidavit sufficiently established that the IME notices had been sent to plaintiff's assignor in accordance with ACE's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Richard Morgan Do, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 134[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50242[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Chi Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 141[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50352[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of the doctor who was to perform the IMEs, which established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, defendant sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d at 1124).

We note that, contrary to the finding of the District Court, while Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5 (e) states that a no-fault insurer must base its request for an examination under oath upon "the application of objective standards so that there is specific objective justification supporting the use of such examination," it does not impose such a standard on a request for an IME.

As the appearance of the assignor at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d 720), defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50622(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

In support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted affidavits of its no-fault examiner and its mailroom supervisor. The affidavits sufficiently established that the EUO notices had been sent to plaintiff's assignor in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Richard Morgan Do, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 134[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50242[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Chi Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 141[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50352[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of the investigator who was to perform the EUOs, which established that the assignor had failed to appear therefor (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, defendant sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d at 1124).

The papers substantiate the basis for the EUO request. Moreover, plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to defendant's request for an EUO. Therefore, plaintiff will not be heard to complain that there was no reasonable basis for the EUO request (cf. Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52046[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).

Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive N. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties participated in a mandatory arbitration proceeding (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28). Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant timely served and filed a demand for a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12). Plaintiff moved to strike the demand, asserting that, while defense counsel had appeared at the arbitration hearing, that appearance was tantamount to a default since defendant had attempted to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity through non-evidentiary submissions of counsel, and had not produced its doctor to testify. As a result, plaintiff contended, defendant was not entitled to demand a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12 [a]). The District Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's demand for a trial de novo, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

The order is affirmed (see B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Geico Indem. Co., 30 Misc 3d 132[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50036[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50627(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant's submission of, among other things, the police report, which identified the insurer of the vehicle in which plaintiff's assignor was a passenger at the time of the accident, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff had exhausted its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d 399 [2005]; Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Olephant, 81 AD2d 886 [1981]). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Nature Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50633(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that there was no coverage because no proof had been provided establishing that all insurance remedies had been exhausted against the owner of the vehicle in which plaintiffs' assignor had been a passenger. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied MVAIC's motion and granted plaintiffs' cross motion. Since plaintiffs and their assignor were aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle in which the assignor had been a passenger at the time of the accident, plaintiffs, as assignees, were required to exhaust their remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52586[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Dr. Abakin, D.C., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52186[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). As plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had exhausted their remedies against the owner of the vehicle, the order is reversed, MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 21130 (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. DIsts. 2011).

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits on October 5, 2005 and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Defendant
opposed plaintiff's motion. By order dated November 2, 2007, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion, finding, among other things, that defendant had not established that its denials had been timely mailed. In a judgment entered on November 21, 2008, plaintiff was awarded the principal amount sought plus statutory interest and attorney's fees. In the judgment, interest was calculated on each of the 12 claims at issue to commence 30 days after defendant's receipt of each claim, as indicated on defendant's claim denial forms.

Shortly after entry of the judgment, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 5015, to vacate the judgment, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to the full amount of the judgment because the interest had been improperly calculated. Defendant contended that plaintiff was entitled to interest only from October 5, 2005, the date that plaintiff had commenced the action, and not, as plaintiff had computed, from 30 days after defendant's receipt of the claim forms at issue. By order entered March 26, 2009, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion to vacate the judgment and directed that the amount of interest awarded be recalculated to run from October 5, 2005 until November 2, 2007. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Insurance Law § 5106 (a) provides that first-party benefits are overdue "if not paid within thirty days after the claimant supplies proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained . . . [and that] overdue payments shall bear interest at the rate of two percent per month." If arbitration is not requested or an action is not commenced "within 30 days after the receipt of a denial of claim form or payment of benefits calculated pursuant to Insurance Department regulations, interest shall not accumulate on the disputed claim or element of claim until such action is taken" (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.9 [c]). Furthermore, if a dispute has been submitted to arbitration or to the courts, "interest shall accumulate, unless the applicant unreasonably delays the . . . court proceeding" (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.9 [d]).

Where, as here, a defendant has not established the proper mailing of the denial of claim form, the claim is considered not to have been denied and payment of benefits will therefore be considered to be "overdue" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5106 (a). Accordingly, interest on the claim will not be tolled (cf. LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 [2009]), and commences to accrue "30 days after the claim was presented to the defendant for payment until the date the claim was or is paid" (Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501 [1994]). As plaintiff calculated interest on the claims in question as commencing 30 days after defendant's receipt of said claims, the Civil Court erred, in its order entered March 26, 2009, in directing that interest be recalculated from the date of the commencement of the action. Similarly, it was error to direct that interest accrue until the date of the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, since interest accrues "until the date the claim was or is paid" (id.). It is noted that plaintiff is not entitled to interest pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, since Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder supersede the provisions for interest contained in the CPLR (Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. [Lombino], 57 AD2d 957, 959 [1977]; see also Smith v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 211 AD2d 177 [1995]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion to vacate the judgment is denied, and the judgment entered on November 21, 2008 is reinstated.

Weston, J.P., and Rios, J., concur.

Golia, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate memorandum.

Golia, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and votes to reverse the order and remit defendant's motion to vacate the judgment to the Civil Court for a determination de novo following a hearing to determine the actual date the denial of claim forms were received by plaintiff.

Although I disagree with the majority in finding that the accumulation of interest will not be tolled until after a denial of claim (NF-10) was received by plaintiff, I am constrained to accept that analysis in view of a recent opinion letter issued by the Superintendent of the Insurance Department.

Opinion of the General Counsel NY Ins. Department No. 10-09-05, dated September 14, 2010, states:
"2 . . . Interest is not tolled during the period that a claim becomes overdue until the insurer issues to the insured the denial of claim. Interest is only suspended or tolled from the date the claimant fails to commence an action within 30 days of the receipt of the denial of claim form until an action is actually commenced."

Nevertheless, I find that the majority's holding here that, "Where, as here, a defendant has not established the proper mailing of the denial of claim form[s], the claim is considered not to have been denied . . ." is inappropriate.

A careful reading of the November 2, 2007 order of the Civil Court does not indicate, as the majority states, that defendant failed to establish "the proper mailing of the denial of claim form[s]" (emphasis added). The Civil Court simply found that "the affidavits proffered by defendant's agents . . . did not establish . . . that defendant's denials were timely mailed" (emphasis added). There is a distinction.

A defendant's failure to prove timely mailing may well result in summary judgment for the plaintiff. However, as was made abundantly clear by the Court of Appeals in LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (12 NY3d 217 [2009]), the untimely mailing of a denial of claim form will not stop the tolling of interest.

Thus, by the confusion raised in this distinction, I further recommend that the Insurance Department revisit and clarify this issue. The punitive interest assessed against a carrier for failing to timely pay a valid claim was meant to serve as a strong incentive to pay claims in a timely manner and to punish those that do not. It would be inappropriate to allow a plaintiff to intentionally choose not to prosecute its claim in hopes that the carrier would not be able to establish mailing or that the court simply finds that it has not. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff would be receiving a windfall in excess of 24% interest per year for up to six years.

If the stated purpose of the No-Fault Law is to resolve claims expeditiously, then it must apply equally to the claimant as well as the carrier.

Some good old fashioned No-Fault

The big one is Langan, which I posted about last week, and there is a little chatter about a footnote if you are interested.

A big change is coming to no-fault paradise. While you are there checking for the changes click on the NYFAIR thing–you will find NYFAIR's update on the Insurance Industry's 2011 agenda.

The Appellate Term, First Department published a slew of interesting cases, indicating a very sharp division between how the First and Second Department address peer review defenses, among other things.

Devonshire Surgical Facility Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50511(U) (App. Term, 1st 2011)

Since the plaintiffs' motion was based upon an alleged "change in the law that would change the prior determination," it was, in actuality, a motion for renewal (CPLR 2221[e][2]; see Daniels v Millar El. Indus., Inc., 44 AD3d 895 [2007]). While there is no time limitation in which to make a motion for leave to renew (see CPLR 2221[e]; Ramos v City of New York, 61 AD3d 51, 54 [2009], app withdrawn 12 NY3d 922 [2009]; Luna v Port Auth. of NY & N.J., 21 AD3d 324, 326 [2005]), plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their delay in seeking renewal for over four years was, in fact, due to a change in the law.

Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, appellate authority in their favor long preceded the motion court's decision in 2005 (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 233 AD2d 433 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1030 [1997]; Quality Med. Healthcare, P.C., v Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co., 2002 NY Slip Op 50098[U] [2002]), and the case cited by plaintiffs does not represent a change in decisional law (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 319 n 5 [2007]). Moreover, plaintiffs failed to present a reasonable justification for their lengthy four-year delay in seeking renewal (see Levy v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 40 AD3d 359, 360 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1001 [2007]).

Devonshire Surgical Facility & Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50512(U)(App. Term, 1st 2011)

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated June 4, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated June 4, 2008, reversed, without costs, and summary judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff Devonshire Surgical Facility in the principal sum of $3,000, and plaintiff Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Services, P.C. in the principal sum of $11,929.08. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Services, P.C. and Devonshire Surgical Facility established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on their respective claims for $11,929.08, and $3,000 (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). Specifically, defendant's documentary submissions established its receipt of plaintiffs' claims and that the claims were overdue (see Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8, 9 [2007]; Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Tr. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 137[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50867[U] [2010]).

In opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, defendant, which was precluded under a so-ordered stipulation from offering certain evidence pertaining to its defense of lack of medical necessity (see Wilson v Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 NY3d 827, 830 [2008]), failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d at 743; Devonshire Surgical Facility, supra). Accordingly, plaintiffs were entitled to judgment in their favor.

This is the first time I've seen anyone try SJ on the complaint (CPLR 3213)

Devonshire Surgical Facility, Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50513(U)(App. Term, 1st 2011)

In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Even assuming that defendant issued timely denials of plaintiffs' claims (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki, 257 AD2d 506 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 809 [1999]), the peer review report relied upon by defendant to deny plaintiffs' claims is conclusory and fails to set forth sufficient facts to raise triable issues with respect to its defense of lack of medical necessity (see East Coast Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50213[U][2007]).

Devonshire Surgical Facility & Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50514(U)(App. Term, 1st 2011)

Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated June 4, 2008, modified to grant (1) summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Devonshire Surgical Facility in the principal sum of $3,000 and (2) partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Services, P.C. in the principal sum of $7,835.29; and, as so modified, order affirmed without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly (see Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Tr. Ins. Co., Cal. No. 11-012, decided simultaneously herewith).

Another SJ on the complaint.

Stephen Matrangalo, DC, PC v Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50517(U)(App. Term, 1st 2011)

Plaintiff, a chiropractic practice, commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to its assignor, who sustained injuries in a January 2009 automobile accident. The assignor was referred to plaintiff by a non-party practitioner. Defendant-insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to Public Health Law § 238-a, claiming that plaintiff may not recover for the services rendered to the assignor because the referring practitioner had a "financial relationship" with plaintiff (see Public Health Law § 238-a[1][a], [b]). Civil Court granted the motion, and we now reverse.

Public Health Law § 238-a prohibits a practitioner from making a referral to a health care provider where the referring practitioner (or immediate family member of such practitioner) has a "financial relationship" with the health care provider (Public Health Law § 238-a[1][a]). A "financial relationship" is defined in section 238(3) of the Public Health Law as "an ownership interest, investment interest or compensation arrangement." Critically, a "compensation arrangement" means "any arrangement involving any remuneration between a practitioner, or immediate family member, and a health care provider" (Public Health Law § 238-a[5][a]), but does not include "payments for the rental or lease of office space" if there is a lease that meets specific enumerated requirements, i.e., is in writing, for a term of at least one year, with a rent consistent with fair market value and not based upon the volume or value of any referrals, and would be commercially reasonable even if no referrals were made (Public Health Law § 238-a[5][b][i]).

The evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to establish, prima facie, that there was any "financial relationship" between plaintiff and the referring practitioner. No allegation is made that there was any "ownership interest" or "investment interest" between [*2]plaintiff and the referring practitioner. Although defendant submitted some unparticularized evidence indicating that plaintiff leased unspecified office space from various unnamed physicians in 2007 — two years prior to the underlying referral — defendant's limited submission failed to establish that there was any "compensation arrangement" in general or any "payments for the rental or lease of office space" in particular, between plaintiff and the referring practitioner. Since defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law its defense pursuant to Public Health Law § 238-a, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The Appellate Term, Second Department put out a few decisions as well.

A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50436(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13 Jud. Dists. 2011)

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff "the sum of $10,196 plus statutory interest and attorney's fees." Thereafter, plaintiff filed a proposed judgment which included, among other things, the sum of $4,259.42 in attorney's fees.

On October 24, 2006, defendant filed a "Rejection of Proposed Judgment." In that rejection, defendant stated, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, that the award of attorney's fees should be limited to the sum of $850. On October 30, 2006, plaintiff received two checks from defendant, one in the amount of $27,173 (representing the principal plus interest) and one in the amount of $915 (representing attorney's fees of $850 plus filing fees), which plaintiff deposited. On December 4, 2006, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, which included, among other things, the sum of $4,259.42 in attorney's fees. Thereafter, plaintiff submitted the judgment to the marshal's office for collection of the balance due thereunder, and the marshal sent a notice of execution to defendant. Upon receiving the notice, defendant moved, in effect, to vacate the notice of levy and sale of its property. By order entered July 21, 2009, the Civil Court (Maureen A. Healy, J.) granted defendant's motion. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A review of defendant's moving papers indicates that defendant sought to challenge so much of the judgment as had awarded plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of $4,259.42. In LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (12 NY3d 217 [2009]), the Court of [*2]Appeals reversed an order of the Appellate Division, Third Department (46 AD3d 1290 [2007]), which had held that attorney's fees in a no-fault action should be calculated on a per-claim, not a per-assignor, basis. Giving effect to an opinion letter of the Superintendent of Insurance (Ops General Counsel NY Ins. Dept. No. 03-10-04 [Oct. 2003]) which interpreted the Insurance Department regulation (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-4.6) establishing the amount of statutory attorney's fees (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]) to be awarded, the Court of Appeals held that attorney's fees in no-fault actions are to be calculated based on the aggregate of all of the bills submitted by a provider with respect to each insured in any action, up to a maximum of $850. Since the regulation and the opinion letter of the Superintendent of Insurance fixing the proper method for calculating the amount to be awarded as attorney's fees pursuant to the regulation were extant at the time the judgment in the case at bar was entered; the Appellate Division ruling had not yet been handed down; the issue of the proper calculation of the attorney's fees due plaintiff had not at that time been determined by the court; and the assessment of the statutory attorney's fees pursuant to the Insurance Department regulation was, in essence, a ministerial matter, the clerk's mistake in entering a judgment which included attorney's fees in the sum of $4,259.42 was properly subject to correction by the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 5019 (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995] cf. Bank of NY v Carlucci, 289 AD2d 349 [2001] [where attorney's fees are not statutorily fixed, an award of attorney's fees is a substantive part of a judgment not subject to correction pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a)]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a corrected judgment awarding plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of $850.

Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50438(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13 Jud. Dists. 2011)

The affidavit submitted by defendant's claims examiner in opposition to plaintiff's motion and in support of defendant's cross motion was sufficient to establish that defendant's claim denial forms, which denied plaintiff's claims on the ground that the equipment provided was not medically necessary, were timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). The fact that there were handwritten notations on the claim denial forms did not [*2]affect their validity, and defendant was not, under these circumstances, required to provide a further explanation.

In addition, the affirmed peer review reports submitted by defendant's doctors were sufficient to establish a lack of medical necessity as they provided a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctors' determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical equipment at issue (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the fact that the peer reviewers took into consideration medical records of other providers in formulating their opinions did not render the peer review reports inadmissible (see Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Since defendant established, prima facie, a lack of medical necessity for the equipment in question, the burden shifted to plaintiff to rebut defendant's prima facie showing (see Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 132[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50700[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a doctor, which was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity (see Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50441[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; cf. A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In view of the foregoing, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and we leave undisturbed the denial of defendant's cross motion.

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50447(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13 Jud. Dists. 2011)

The affidavit of defendant's litigation claims examiner established that defendant had timely mailed its request and follow-up request for verification to plaintiff (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b]; § 65-3.6 [b]) in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). The mere denial by plaintiff's medical biller of receipt of the verification requests did not overcome the presumption that proper mailing had occurred and that plaintiff had received the verification requests (see Schmiemann v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 13 AD3d 514 [2004]; Morales v Yaghoobian, 13 AD3d 424 [2004]; Truscello v Olympia Constr., 294 AD2d 350 [2002]). Since plaintiff did not serve responses to the verification requests prior to the commencement of the action, defendant's motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted, as defendant's time to pay or deny the claims had not begun to run (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]).

And there was a very interesting decision from a lower court.

Novacare Med. P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50500(U) (Dist Ct Nassau County, Second Dist)

In short, there appears to be no basis in the law, and no basis in logic, for accepting an affirmed peer review doctor's opinion, carte blanche, without scrutinizing the report's contents. As plaintiff's counsel cogently argues, "[e]very peer review report is different and requires individual scrutiny to determine whether or not in contains a [sufficient] factual basis and medical rationale." The Court agrees that such scrutiny is necessary and appropriate before it decides whether the burden should be shifted back to the plaintiff to submit contrary expert proof. If the plaintiff can demonstrate, through references to the medical records or otherwise, that the peer review doctor's opinion lacks a sufficient "factual basis" and/or "medical rationale" because it is conclusory, or because it fails to address essential factual issues or is based upon disputed or apparently incorrect facts, the defendant's motion should be denied regardless of whether plaintiff submits expert proof of its own.

In the instant matter, plaintiff's opposition points to such shortcomings in the peer review report. The peer review doctor's opinion rests, in large part, upon his factual assumption that the medical records failed to document "persistent radicular symptoms". However, as plaintiff's counsel demonstrates, this assertion is contradicted by the very medical records that defendant's expert reviewed.

Notably, the reports of claimant's treating physicians document, over a course of nearly a month, the persistence of radiating pain in claimant's neck and back. Several weeks after claimant's accident, his family physician, Dr. Grigoran, performed a physical examination which resulted in an assessment of "cervical radiculopothy." Upon Dr. Grigoran's referral to a neurologist, Dr. Kahn, claimant was examined again. Despite having undergone weeks of conservative treatment, claimant was still suffering from "frequent" neck and back pain, accompanied by "numbness". A cervical compression test was "positive" for "radicular symptomology." So, too, the results of a Spurling test were reported as "positive".

In light of theses symptoms and test results, Dr. Kahn's diagnosis included findings of "Cervical/Lumbar radiculopothy," and "Cervical radiculitis." His recommendations included the performance of EMG/NCS tests of the cervical/lumbar spine and upper/lower extremities "to elucidate the degree and location of compression on existing nerve roots and peripheral nerves." Not surprisingly, the electro-diagnostic test results revealed "an abnormal study, consistent with a left C5-6 and right L4-5 and L5-S1 radiculopothy."

When such test results are viewed together with claimant's well documented medical history, it is difficult to accept, at face value, the peer review doctor's factual assumption that he found no evidence of "persistent radicular symptoms" which may have justified Dr. Kahn's decision to recommend electro-diagnostic testing. Moreover, in the peer doctor's description of the accepted standards and protocols for electro-diagnostic testing, defendant's peer review doctor acknowledges that such tests may be medically appropriate for patients whose radicular symptoms "are persistent or unresponsive to initial conservative treatments."

In the face of the medical record evidence, cited above, and the absence of proof of a more definitive, clear cut standard for prescribing electro-diagnostic tests, plaintiff's opposition makes a convincing case that defendant's moving papers fail to meet its burden. To a significant extent, the peer review doctor's opinion rests upon conclusory assumptions and disputed or incorrect facts. Consequently, such an opinion, by itself, is insufficient to prove defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its lack of medical necessity defense. In these circumstances, the absence of opposing expert proof from plaintiff is immaterial.

The No-Fault (most of March 2011)

I just realized that I haven't posted a no-fault case in over a month.

Appellate Division, Second Department

Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 02379 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The plaintiff hospital, as assignee of Bartolo Reyes, was awarded judgment against the defendant in the principal sum of $416,039.42, in this action to recover no-fault medical benefits under a contract of insurance entered into between the plaintiff's assignee and the defendant. The defendant thereafter moved to modify the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), belatedly asserting that the judgment exceeded the coverage limit of the subject policy due, in part, to payments previously made under the policy to other health care providers. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to modify the judgment.

The defendant failed to specify on which of the five subdivisions of CPLR 5015(a) its motion was based, much less establish its entitlement to relief on any of the enumerated grounds. To the extent that the defendant sought modification pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) based upon "newly-discovered evidence," the defendant failed to demonstrate that the evidence offered in support of the motion, i.e., an affidavit of an employee setting forth the policy limits and the amount of benefits paid for alleged prior claims, "was not available at the time of the prejudgment proceedings" (Jonas v Jonas, 4 AD3d 336, 336; see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735).

Moreover, although courts possess inherent discretionary power to grant relief from a judgment or order in the interest of justice, this "extraordinary relief" is not appropriate under the circumstances presented (Jakobleff v Jakobleff, 108 AD2d 725, 726-727; see Selinger v Selinger, 250 AD2d 752). The plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment on the complaint, seeking a certain amount of benefits, in accordance with the no-fault billing statement sent to the defendant, and this Court reversed the denial of that motion and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045). Only after the plaintiff obtained, upon this Court's order, a judgment from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, representing, inter alia, the amount of benefits sought in the complaint, did the defendant raise the issue of exhaustion of the policy limits. Under these circumstances, modification of the judgment in the interest of justice is not warranted.

Manuel v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 02362 (App. Div., 2nd 2011) ("Alighting")

For the no-fault statute to apply, the vehicle must be a proximate cause of the injury (see Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 215). To be a proximate cause of the injury, the use of the motor vehicle must be closely related to the injury (see Zaccari v Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 597; Elite Ambulette Corp. v All City Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 643). Also, the injury must result from the intrinsic nature of the motor vehicle as such, and the use of the vehicle must do more than merely contribute to the condition which produced it (see Zaccari v Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 597; Republic Long Is., Inc. v Andrew J. Vanacore, Inc., 29 AD3d 665; Duroseau v Town of Hempstead, 117 AD2d 579).

Here, the negligent operation of a motor vehicle was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff's theory of liability is that her injuries resulted from the manner in which the bus driver operated the bus, specifically his positioning of the bus next to a hole in the street when he pulled over at the bus stop. Moreover, this is not a case in which the plaintiff was completely outside of the vehicle when the accident occurred (see Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d at 215; Santo v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 525; Elite Ambulette Corp. v All City Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 643), or in which the plaintiff was the victim of an intentional tort (see Lancer Ins. Co. v Peterson, 175 AD2d 239; Locascio v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 127 AD2d 746; Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004).

This case is analogous to Hill v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth. (157 AD2d 93). In Hill, the plaintiff fell while descending the stairs of the rear exit of a bus, when she tripped on a nail or tile on the bus staircase and fell into a hole in the sidewalk. This Court agreed with the defendant's assertion that the no-fault law applied, because the accident arose from the use or operation of a bus (see Matter of Celona v Royal Globe Ins. Co., (85 AD2d 635).

NYCTA was not estopped from arguing that the accident arose from the use or operation of the insured vehicle, as NYCTA never did anything to lead the plaintiff to believe that it would not argue that the accident arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Walsh v Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 101 AD2d 988). NYCTA stated at trial that first-party benefits had been denied because it had no record of the accident.

Appellate Division, FIrst Department

Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 01948 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The motion court properly determined that plaintiff insurer may retroactively deny claims on the basis of defendants' assignors' failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) requested by plaintiff, even though plaintiff initially denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721-722 [2006]). The failure to appear for IMEs requested by the insurer "when, and as often as, [it] may reasonably require" (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1) is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the No-Fault policy, and therefore fits squarely within the exception to the preclusion doctrine, as set forth in Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. (90 NY2d 195 [1997]). Accordingly, when defendants' assignors failed to appear for the requested IMEs, plaintiff had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8[c]; Fogel, 35 AD3d at 721-22).

It is of no moment that the retroactive denials premised on failure to attend IMEs were embodied in blanket denial forms, or that they were issued based on failure to attend IMEs in a different medical speciality from that which underlies the claims at issue. A denial premised on breach of a condition precedent to coverage voids the policy ab initio and, in such case, the insurer cannot be precluded from asserting a defense premised on no coverage (see Chubb, 90 NY2d at 199).

There is likewise no merit to defendants' contention that the IME request notices were invalid. Plaintiff satisfied its prima facie burden on summary judgment of establishing that it requested IMEs in accordance with the procedures and time-frames set forth in the No-Fault implementing regulations, and that defendants' assignors did not appear. In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact that the requests were unreasonable (see generally Celtic Med. P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 13, 14-15 [2007]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 9 Misc 3d 19, 21 [2005]).

Defendants' argument that plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the assignors' failure to appear for the IMEs was willful is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. The doctrine of willfulness, as addressed in Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co. (19 NY2d 159 [1967]), applies in the context of liability policies, and has no application in the No-Fault context, where the eligible injured party has full control over the requirements and conditions necessary to obtain coverage (cf. id. at 168).

I think this is an absolutely terrible decision. The language of the decision permits an insurance policty to be voided ab initio as a result of the actions of someone other than the insured. So if the insured has an accident and a passenger gets hurt, but does not attend an IME, the insured's policy goes bye bye. It also expands the scope of a coverage defense beyond the Court of Appeal's definition. And the decision is in conflict with longstanding law from the Second Department. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will take this one.

For a much longer discussion of this decision and what it spells for the future of no-fault, head over to No-Fault Defender where there are 60 comments and counting.

Appellate Term, Second Department

The Appellate Term denied leave for Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. v State Wide Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52229(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

Gateway Med., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50336(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011).

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction since the purported service of the summons and complaint under CPLR 312-a was never completed, as defendant never signed and returned an acknowledgment of service. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that defendant should be compelled to sign the acknowledgment or, in the alternative, that plaintiff should be permitted to serve the summons and complaint by another manner. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion, and this appeal ensued.

The record reveals that an acknowledgment of receipt was never signed by defendant and returned to plaintiff. "If the acknowledgment of receipt is not mailed or returned to the sender, the sender is required to effect personal service in another manner" (Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]; see also Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275 [1992]). Plaintiffs did not effect service in another manner. Accordingly, the service was defective and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

JT had an interesting take on the case.

W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52385(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

Subsequent to that [discovery] order, the Civil Court issued an order dismissing the action since plaintiff failed to produce the court-ordered discovery. The dismissal of the action rendered the instant appeal academic (see Livny v Rotella, 305 AD2d 377 [2003]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50673[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC Inc., 13 Misc 3d 33 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

The bracketed word is mine.

Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50315(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

The billing records submitted by plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment do not assert that the supplies at issue had been delivered to plaintiff's assignor. Nor did plaintiff's affiant state that he had delivered the supplies to plaintiff's assignor. Indeed, he stated that it is his general practice to either (1) deliver his supplies directly to the eligible injured person or to (2) deliver them to the prescribing healthcare providers for subsequent delivery to the eligible injured person. He did not specify in his affidavit which method of delivery was used in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff's moving papers failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

We note that the holding in Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co. (10 NY3d 556 [2008]) does not impact our decision in this case because, in that case, the issue of whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case was not dealt with by either the Appellate Division (42 AD3d 277 [2007]) or the Court of Appeals (10 NY3d 556). The Court of Appeals held that a defense that the billed-for services or supplies were never provided is precluded if the insurer fails to timely deny the claim, and both courts limited their discussions to the preclusion issue. Here, we are asked to consider whether plaintiff's moving papers made out a prima facie case in the first instance so as to even shift the burden to defendant to raise a non-precluded defense (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), and we conclude that they did not.

The Court distinguishes Fair Price in a way that renders the Court of Appeals' decision meaningless.

Quality Health Prods. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50328(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

Plaintiff established that defendant did not pay plaintiff's claim. However, plaintiff failed to establish that the claim was not denied within 30 days (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 512 [2006]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]). Plaintiff attached a copy of a portion of defendant's denial of claim form to its motion papers, but this copy did not establish that defendant did not deny the claim within 30 days, since the date of the denial of claim form was not contained in the portion of the form annexed to plaintiff's papers. Moreover, plaintiff's affiant did not provide the date on which the denial of claim form was received by plaintiff. Furthermore, the reason for defendant's denial of the claim was also not included in the annexed portion of the form. As plaintiff failed to show that the claim was not denied within 30 days or that the basis for the denial was conclusory, vague or had no merit as a matter of law, it failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1168). As a result, we need not consider the sufficiency of defendant's paper's submitted in opposition to the motion (see Westchester Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1168). Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on a different ground.

Westchester doesn't quite say what they cite it to say.

Exoto, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50329(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

On appeal, plaintiff asserts that it provided defendant with the NF-3 form it requested as additional verification. Plaintiff did not subsequently respond to defendant's follow-up request seeking the same verification because defendant failed to clearly state why the previously submitted NF-3 form was insufficient. Consequently, plaintiff argues, it is not in default in providing the requested verification.

A review of the record indicates that each of defendant's requests for NF-3 forms states, in pertinent part, that "Every box must be fully completed, blank boxes will not be accepted." It is uncontroverted that the box on the NF-3 form plaintiff provided in response to defendant's initial verification request – – wherein the provider's signature should be placed – – was left blank. Therefore, when defendant issued its follow-up request which, again, informed plaintiff that "Every box must be fully completed, blank boxes will not be accepted," defendant clearly apprised plaintiff of why the submitted NF-3 form did not satisfy its request for verification.

Since plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had provided defendant with the requested verification prior to the commencement of the instant action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

If you knew the facts of this case you would cringe after reading this decision.

CPLR R. 2219 Time and form of order.

Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50331(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, MVAIC defaulted because it failed to submit written opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2219 [a]; Coneys v Johnson Controls, Inc., 11 AD3d 576 [2004]; Marino v Termini, 4 AD3d 342 [2004]; Millennium Med. Instruments v MVAIC, 27 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50583[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Accordingly, MVAIC's motion properly sought to vacate the default judgment entered against it.

In support of its motion, under the circumstances presented, MVAIC established both a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Accordingly, MVAIC's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it should have been granted (see Strauss v R & K Envtl., 66 AD3d 766 [2009]; New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 511 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442 [2006]).

Go here for some background on this appeal.

Appellate Term, First Department

Now take a look at how the First Department approaches and MVAIC appeal. Same attorneys.

Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50432(U) (App. Term, 1st 2011)

[A]ffirmed, with $10 costs.

In this action by plaintiff-provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim based on plaintiff's failure to establish that its assignor qualified for MVAIC coverage, was properly denied (see Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic, PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]; Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (___AD3d ___, 2011 NY Slip Op 00176 [2011]). Nor has defendant established that plaintiff was required to "exhaust its remedies" prior to commencing this action (see Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 29 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51779[U] [2010]). Defendant's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that it is entitled to dismissal of the action as premature based on outstanding verification requests is without merit (id.).

Kind of a big deal (below). I forgot whether I posted this before and I don't feel like checking.

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 141(A) (App. Term, 1st 2011)

In opposition to plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Countrywide Ins. Co. v 563 Grand Med., P.C., 50 AD3d 313, 314 [2008]; Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO, 28 Misc 3d 34, 36 [2010]; Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8, 9 [2007]), the report of defendant's peer review doctor, which relied on the assignor's medical records (see Cross Cont. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 10, 11 [2006]; see also Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [2010]), raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the services provided by plaintiff were medically necessary (see Krishna v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51312[U] [2009]). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, its "submissions did not conclusively establish as a matter of law its defense of lack of medical necessity," and its cross motion was properly denied (A Plus Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50824[U] [2009]).

Combine this decision with Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06071 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010), Stephen Fealy, M.D., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51442(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010), and Hillcrest Radiology Assoc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51467(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010), and you have something interesting.

The no-fault

Appellate Division

M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 01333 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Insurance Law § 5105(b) requires that mandatory arbitration be used to resolve all disputes between insurers as to their responsibility for the payment of first-party benefits. 11 NYCRR 65-3.12(b) provides that "[i]f a dispute regarding priority of payment arises among insurers who otherwise are liable for the payment of first-party benefits, then the first insurer to whom notice of claim is given . . . shall be responsible for payment to such person. Any such dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the arbitration procedures established pursuant to section 5105 of the Insurance Law and section 65-4.11 of this Part."

Defendant argues that its denial of benefits raised an issue of coverage, rather than of payment, because it was not "otherwise [] liable" for the payment of first-party benefits. However, 11 NYCRR 65-4.11(a)(6) provides that "any controversy between insurers involving the responsibility or the obligation to pay first-party benefits (i.e., priority [of] payment or sources of payment as provided in section 65-3.12 of this Part) is not considered a coverage question and must be submitted to mandatory arbitration under this section." Thus, as "the first insurer to whom notice of claim [was] given" (11 NYCRR 65-3.12[b]), defendant was responsible or obligated to pay the no-fault benefits for the health services provided by plaintiff, irrespective of any issues of priority or source of payment. By denying plaintiff's claim on the stated ground that no-fault benefits were payable by another insurer (Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Co.), defendant raised an issue as to which insurer was obligated to pay first-party [*2]benefits, which "[c]learly . . . is an inter-company dispute subject to mandatory arbitration" (see Paramount Ins. Co. v Miccio, 169 AD2d 761, 763 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 851 [1991]; Matter of Pacific Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 455, 456 [1989]).

Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 01458 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its complaint to recover no-fault insurance medical payments by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing form had been mailed and received by the defendant and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d 1014, 1017; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 43 AD3d 1019, 1020).

In opposition to the plaintiff's motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely denied the plaintiff's claim. The defendant's denial of claim form NF-10 dated December 18, 2009, was fatally defective because it omitted several material items of information (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 665). The defendant also failed to submit sufficient evidence that it mailed the second denial of claim form NF-10 bearing the date December 31, 2009, to establish compliance with the 30-day period (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 284 AD2d 374, 375). Thus, the defendant also failed to make a prima facie showing that it timely denied the claim in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Failure to establish timely denial of the claim results in preclusion of the defense that the intoxication of the insured was a contributing cause of the accident and subject to exclusion under the policy (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 286). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and should have denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Appellate Term

Edison Med. Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50193(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

In the case at bar, defendant proffered no reasonable excuse as to why it served its answer late. Defendant merely asserted that, due to a clerical error, the caption of the answer it ultimately served was incorrect. However, the purported document, which listed the wrong assignor, could not properly be characterized as an answer to the complaint. Moreover, the foregoing error did not establish an excuse for the untimely service of the answer. According to a paralegal employed by defendant's law firm, the answer was served on August 2, 2007, almost four months after the default judgment had been entered. In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse for defendant's default, it is unnecessary to consider whether defendant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]). Accordingly, as the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's motion, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., and Weston, J., concur.

There is a Golia dissent.

GLM Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50194(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

The affidavits submitted by defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed in accordance with the affiants' employers' standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic [*2]Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affirmation from one of its attorneys, who was responsible for conducting the EUOs at issue. He alleged facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear at counsel's former law office for duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Such an appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR]
§ 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50716[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Further, contrary to the Civil Court's determination, there is no requirement that EUO scheduling letters conspicuously highlight the time and place of the EUO by use of, among other things, a bold or larger font (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b], [e]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50195(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

Defendant's proof consisted of the affidavit of its special investigator and the police accident report. As the police accident report did not constitute proof in admissible form (see LMS Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 141[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51072[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), and the special investigator's affidavit relied, in part, upon the police accident report, such proof did not establish, as a matter of law, that the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]) so as to warrant the granting of summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52383[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50184(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

The affidavits submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to establish that the IME scheduling letters had been mailed in accordance with Crossland's standard office practices and procedures or that the affiants had personally mailed the scheduling letters (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

However, plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment upon their cross motion because the affidavit submitted by plaintiffs' supervisor of medical billing pertained to the claims at issue in another action, rather than the claims at issue in this action (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As a result, plaintiffs did not establish their prima facie case (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50188(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

The papers submitted in support of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment included two peer review reports in admissible form, both of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewers' opinions that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation of its doctor which sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a question of fact as to medical necessity (see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group, 27 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50601[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Park Slope [*2]Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50441[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In view of the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the medical supplies in question, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

I’m having an existential crisis

In the meantime, here are the recent no-fault decisions.

Appellate Term 1st

Natural Acupuncture Health, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50040(U) (App. Term, 1st Dept)

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing plaintiff Spring Medical, P.C.'s claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant established through the affidavit of its claims examiner and excerpts from the Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, which may be judicially noticed by this Court (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 21 [2009]), that the fees Spring charged for the medical services it rendered to the assignor exceeded the relevant rates set forth in the fee schedule. In opposition, Spring failed to raise a triable issue regarding [*2]defendant's interpretation of the fee schedule or calculation of the applicable fees. Therefore, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing Spring's claims — which sought the difference between the amount Spring charged for the services and payments defendant made to Spring pursuant to the fee schedule — should have been granted (see Cornell Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 24 Misc 3d 58 [2009]).

Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim of plaintiff Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. based on lack of medical necessity was properly denied, since defendant did not demonstrate as a matter of law that it timely denied the claim within the statutory 30-day period (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki, 257 AD2d 506 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 809 [1999]) or that the 30-day period was tolled by a proper verification request (see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535 [2005]). We note in this connection that the reply affirmation submitted by Right Aid could not be considered for the purpose of showing a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Batista v Santiago, 25 AD3d 326 [2006]).

Pomona Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50042(U) (App. Term, 1st Dept.)

Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, albeit for reasons other than those stated by Civil Court. In support of its contention that plaintiff's assignor was not a "qualified" person entitled to payment of first-party no-fault benefits by defendant (see Insurance Law § 5221[b]), defendant relied on inadmissible hearsay — an uncertified computer printout of an "insurance activity expansion" (see Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]). In any event, the expansion does not establish that there was a policy of insurance in effect at the time of the accident (see generally id.; cf. Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Co. (Kim), 268 AD2d 296 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 762 [2000]). Defendant's submissions are also insufficient to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff's assignor did not comply with the notice of claim requirements (see Insurance Law § 5208).

Appellate Term 2nd

Allstate Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 21010 (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

It is uncontested that defendant established that the IME requests were timely mailed in accordance with HVMC's standard office practices and procedures and that the assignors failed to appear for the IMEs (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). However, plaintiff contends that defendant's insurance policy, which incorporates the language of the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1), requires that IMEs of eligible injured persons (EIPs) be conducted only by physicians, to the exclusion of other healthcare providers, even when the health services for which first-party no-fault benefits are sought were provided by non-physicians. In rejecting [*2]plaintiff's contention, the Civil Court relied on an opinion letter of the State Insurance Department, dated March 12, 2004 (see 2004 Ops Ins Dept No. 04-03-10). We find that the Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR part 65), read as a whole, in accordance with the rules of construction, and the State Insurance Department's opinion letter, to which we accord great deference, lead to the conclusion that the requirement that an EIP submit to medical examinations, as set forth in the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1), should not be limited strictly to examinations by physicians. Thus, in the instant matter, we find that the psychologist retained by defendant could properly have conducted the IMEs of plaintiff's assignors, who had received psychological treatment (see generally Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; Meridian Acupuncture Care v Geico Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 509 [2006]). A contrary conclusion would frustrate the core objective of the no-fault scheme by limiting the universe of healthcare providers who can perform IMEs to physicians, thereby delaying the processing of no-fault claims (see also Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722). Therefore, we find that defendant properly denied plaintiff's claims based on its assignors' failure to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage.

Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v Alev Med. Supply, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 21012 (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2011)

With very limited exceptions, an insurer's failure to pay or deny a claim within the 30-day claim determination period (see Insurance Law § 5106) precludes the insurer from interposing most defenses to payment of no-fault benefits, including the fact that medical services or medical [*2]equipment billed for were never actually provided (see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556[2008]). If an insurer is precluded from asserting a defense due to its failure to pay or deny a claim within the 30-day claim determination period, it may not later seek to recover amounts it paid on the claim based on a theory of unjust enrichment (see e.g. Cornell Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 24 Misc 3d 58 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). However, where, as here, an insurer timely pays a claim within the 30-day claim determination period, the insurer is not foreclosed from affirmatively commencing an action to recover the amounts paid on the claim when the insurer later discovers that the claim is fraudulent (see State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Grafman, 655 F Supp 2d 212, 223-224 [ED NY 2009]; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v James M. Liguori, M.D., P.C., 589 F Supp 2d 221 [ED NY 2008]; see also Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs. P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 1111[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50639[U] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008, Austin, J.]; Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Advanced Diagnostic & Treatment Med., NYLJ, Aug. 2, 2001, at 18, col 2 [Sup Ct, NY County, Gammerman, J.]). The fact that the insurer chose to pay first-party no-fault benefits within the 30-day claim determination period, at a point when the insurer had no reason to deny the claim, "cannot in any sense be taken as a concession that the claim is legitimate" (Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 224 [1986]). Indeed, an opinion letter issued by the New York State Department of Insurance specifically states that the No-Fault Law "is in no way intended and should not serve as a bar to subsequent actions by an insurer for the recovery of fraudulently obtained benefits from a claimant, where such action is authorized under the auspices of any statute or under common law" (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept [Nov. 29, 2000]). The rationale behind this interpretation is that "payment of fraudulently obtained No-Fault benefits, without available recourse, serves to undermine and damage the integrity of the No-Fault system, which was created as a social reparations system for the benefit of consumers. To conclude that the No-Fault statute bars the availability of other legal remedies, where the payment of benefits [was] secured through fraudulent means, renders the public as the ultimate victim of such fraud, in the form of higher premiums based upon the resultant increased costs arising from the fraudulent actions" (id.). Moreover, "[t]here is nothing in the legislative history or case law interpretations of the statute or in Insurance Department regulations, opinions or interpretations of the statute that supports the argument that the statute bars such actions" (id.).

Accordingly, contrary to the conclusion of the District Court, plaintiff is not barred from bringing this action seeking recovery of the amount it paid to defendant. As plaintiff demonstrated its compliance with CPLR 3215 (f) and CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i), the District Court should have granted plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch., 2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

Defendant's cross motion papers set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because plaintiff fails to meet applicable state and local licensing requirements (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.16 [a] [12]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]). As defendant's cross motion papers were sufficient to establish that special circumstances exist which warrant [*2]disclosure of plaintiff's corporate tax returns and its professional employees' tax records (see CPLR 3101; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738 [2008]; Great Wall Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Statewide Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52014[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006], revg 9 Misc 3d 1124[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51773[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2005]; see also Dore v Allstate Indem. Co., 264 AD2d 804 [1999]; cf. Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 599, 600 [2007]; Altidor v State-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 435 [2005]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

South Nassau Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50028(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

Plaintiff, as assignee, is required to exhaust its remedies against the owner of the vehicle in which plaintiff's assignor was riding before seeking relief from MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52586[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Dr. Abakin, D.C., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52186[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Dists 2008]; see also Knight v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 62 AD3d 665, 666 [2009]; cf. Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). Until plaintiff [*2]exhausts its remedies, its claim against MVAIC is premature (Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50033(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2011)

In support of its cross motion and in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff did not assert that it had never received the initial and follow-up verification requests nor did it assert that it had fully complied with these requests. Plaintiff's attorney merely argued that since the affidavit of the hospital biller, taken together with the copy of the certified return receipt card, established that defendant had received the bill on December 22, 2008, defendant's initial verification request, sent on November 26, 2008, pre-dated defendant's receipt of the bill and was therefore a nullity. However, the record establishes that defendant's initial verification request was sent to plaintiff after plaintiff had sent, and defendant had received, a UB-04 form, which specified the treatment rendered. The UB-04 form is the successor to the UB-92 form and the functional equivalent of the NF-5 form (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [a], [f]). Accordingly, defendant's initial verification request was not untimely (cf. Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11 [1999]).

Since plaintiff has not rebutted defendant's prima facie showing that defendant's initial request and follow-up request for verification were timely and that plaintiff failed to respond to same, defendant established that its time to pay or deny the claim was tolled. Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, on the ground that the action was premature, should have been granted (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52046[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Radiology Today, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50035(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011)

In light of the subsequent order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint (Rudolph Greco, J.) and the judgment entered thereon on November 16, 2009, the right of direct appeal from the order entered September 25, 2009 terminated (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

B.Y., M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50036(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2011)

Thereafter, the parties participated in mandatory arbitration (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28) and, after the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant served and filed a demand for a trial de novo (seeRules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12), and plaintiffs moved to strike defendant's demand. In support of plaintiffs' motion, plaintiffs' attorney asserted that, while defendant had appeared at the arbitration by its attorney, defendant's attorney's participation had been minimal, and, thus, defendant should have been deemed to be in default. As a result, plaintiffs contended, defendant was not entitled to demand a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12 [a]). Defendant submitted opposition papers, and the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion. The instant appeal ensued.

The Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) § 28.12 (a) provides that a demand for a trial de novo "may be made by any party not in default." A party's failure to appear at an arbitration hearing constitutes a default (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.7 [a]). Even where a defendant has appeared by counsel at an arbitration hearing, if such appearance is "without his client[]" and the defendant's counsel "refus[es] to participate in the hearing," the defendant is [*2]similarly deemed to have defaulted (Bitzko v Gamache, 168 AD2d 888, 888 [1990]; see also Finamore v Huntington Cardiac Rehabilitation Assn., 150 AD2d 426 [1989]). However, where, as here, a defendant's attorney appears on behalf of his client at the arbitration hearing without any witnesses, but otherwise participates in the hearing by attempting to refute the plaintiff's case, the defendant has not defaulted (see e.g. Tripp v Reitman Blacktop, 188 Misc 2d 317 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]; San-Dar Assoc. v Adams, 167 Misc 2d 727 [App Term, 1st Dept 1996]). Accordingly, the District Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's demand for a trial de novo.

Appellate Division

Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 00377 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The order entered December 21, 2009, did not decide the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in contempt for failure to comply with an information subpoena dated March 30, 2009, or the defendant's cross motion to quash the information subpoena, but instead, held that motion and cross motion in abeyance and referred them for a hearing. Accordingly, no appeal lies as of right from that portion of the order (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Evan S. v Joseph R., 70 AD3d 668; Quigley v Coco's Water Café, Inc., 43 AD3d 1132), and we decline to grant leave.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered on default must demonstrate a [*2]reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing or answering the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Taddeo-Amendola v 970 Assets, LLC, 72 AD3d 677). The defendant established through an employee's affidavit, which attested to a clerical oversight regarding the delay in forwarding the summons and complaint to its attorney, a reasonable excuse for the short period of time following service of the complaint in which it failed either to appear or answer the complaint (see Perez v Travco Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 738; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 31 AD3d 743). Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated that it has a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate its default and to compel acceptance of its answer in light of the strong public policy that actions be resolved on their merits, the brief delay involved, the defendant's lack of willfulness, and the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Perez v Travco Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 738; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442).

Almost related to no-fault.

Quinones v Ksieniewicz, 2011 NY Slip Op 00270 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

However, defendants failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a medically determined injury "of a non-permanent nature" that prevented him from performing substantially all of his customary and daily activities for 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident (see Toussaint v Claudio, 23 AD3d 268 [2005]; Feaster v Boulabat, 77 AD3d 440, 441 [2010]). The reports of defendants' medical experts were based on examinations of plaintiff conducted nearly two years after the subject accident, and addressed plaintiff's condition as of the time of the examination, not during the six months immediately after the accident. The MRI studies that the defense experts reviewed were performed 10 months after the accident.

No-Fault with a tiny tiiiiiny tap of CPLR

caddyshack

CPLR R. 2214 Motion papers; service; time

CPLR R. 4518 Business records

22 NYCRR § 208.17 Notice of trial where all parties appear by attorney.

22 NYCRR § 208.4 Papers filed in court; index number; form; label.

CPLR R. 2106 Affirmation of truth of statement by attorney, physician, osteopath or dentis

CPLR § 3123 Admissions as to matters of fact, papers, documents and photographs

A relative ton of no- fault decisions came out today from the Appellate Term, Second Department. Again, I'm not posting them because you care, but because It's easy for me to find cases when I post them. For serious discussion, head over to JT and NFP.

There are, however, some interesting procedural nuances in the decisions, making them almost relevant here.

PEERS

Stephen Fealy, M.D., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51442(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

We note, at the outset, that plaintiff's "Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition" is, in reality, a sur-reply, for the submission of which no showing of "good cause" had been made and which should not have been considered by the Civil Court and has not been reviewed on this appeal (see CPLR 2214 [c]; McMullin v Walker, 68 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; Graffeo v Paciello, [*2]46 AD3d 613, 615 [2007]; Flores v Stankiewicz, 35 AD3d 804, 805 [2006]; Severino v Classic Collision, 280 AD2d 463 [2001]).

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Muscatello v City of New York, 215 AD2d 463 [1995]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "It is axiomatic that summary judgment requires issue-finding rather than issue-determination and that resolution of issues of credibility is not appropriate" (Greco v Posillico, 290 AD2d 532, 532 [2002] [citation omitted]). The court, on a motion for summary judgment, should not determine issues of credibility or the probability of success on the merits, but should only determine whether there is a triable issue of fact (Venetal v City of New York, 21 AD3d 1087 [2005]; Greco, 290 AD2d 532). The existence of triable issues of fact precludes a finding of a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Wilson-Toby v Bushkin, 72 AD3d 810 [2010]; see Brown v Outback Steakhouse, 39 AD3d 450, 451 [2007]; Gray v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 245 AD2d 337 [1997]; Muscatello, 215 AD2d at 464).

Although defendant's papers established, prima facie, based on objective medical evidence, that the assignor's injuries did not arise from the accident, we find that the affirmation in opposition, written by Dr. Fealy, the surgeon who actually performed the procedure on the assignor, read in conjunction with the other medical and hospital reports indicating that the assignor had complained of left knee pain within days of the accident, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact that must be resolved at trial.

Read JT's comments.

Hillcrest Radiology Assoc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51467(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant annexed to its papers an affirmed peer review report, which found the MRIs in question to be medically unnecessary. However, also annexed to the moving papers were defendant's independent medical examination report, which found one of the MRIs to be medically necessary, and other reports that contradicted facts set forth in the peer review report. Since defendant's moving papers are contradictory as to whether there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue, defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, defendant's motion was properly denied (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

There is a Golia dissent.

Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Larendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51452(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

CPLR R. 3212(f)

VERIFICATION

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51456(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Although defendant demonstrated that it had timely requested verification of the claim (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [b]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), defendant failed to establish that plaintiff did not provide the requested verification. Defendant's litigation examiner did not even allege that the requested verification was outstanding, and defendant's attorney failed to demonstrate that she had personal knowledge to support her assertion of defendant's non-receipt of such documents (see Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455, 456 [2006]; Feratovic v Lun Wah, Inc., 284 AD2d 368, 368 [2001]; V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins., 20 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51473[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

There is a Golia "atta boy" at the end.

Total Family Chiropractic v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51470(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).

In an attempt to establish that the time period in which it had to pay or deny the claims was tolled due to outstanding verification requests, defendant relied upon spreadsheets annexed to the affidavit of its claim representative. However, because the claim representative did not establish that the spreadsheets constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; Palisades Collection, LLC v Kedik, 67 AD3d 1329, 1330-1331 [2009]; Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]), defendant has not shown that it made timely verification requests.

While defendant has failed to demonstrate that it is not precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), in any event, defendant is not precluded from raising the defense of fraudulent procurement of the insurance policy (see Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 [2000]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 8 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The certified transcripts of plaintiff's assignors' examinations under oath, annexed to defendant's motion papers, support defendant's assertion that the assignors' testimony at an examination before trial would be material and necessary to the defense of fraudulent procurement of an insurance policy (see CPLR 3101 [a]). Since plaintiff served the notice of trial two weeks after defendant served its answer and it is uncontroverted that defendant timely moved to vacate the notice of trial within 20 days of its receipt of same (see Uniform Rules for Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [c]), the branch of defendant's motion seeking to strike the notice of trial is granted. However, as plaintiff's assignors are not directors, members or employees of plaintiff, defendant must subpoena them to compel their appearance at examinations before trial (see CPLR 3016 [b]; see also A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Inso Co., 14 Misc 3d 143[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50384[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 13, 2009 is vacated, the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon the claim form dated March 22, 2007, the branch of defendant's motionseeking to strike the notice of trial and to compel plaintiff's assignors to attend examinations before trial is granted to the extent of striking the notice of trial, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

So the NOT was stricken so that defendant could issue a non-party subpoena for an EBT. What happens when the non-party doesn't appear, assuming, of course, that the non-party doesn't appear. It would make sense for the Appellate Term to provide some guidance. Read JT's comments.

Almost forgot. There is an article in the NYSBA journal on non-party discovery by David Horowitz.

Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51455(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

The "who cares if he doesnt know how he knows, he's a partner" exception to Fogel.

MVAIC (condition precedent or coverage or both)

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51454(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Under the circumstances presented, the Civil Court should have considered the affidavit submitted by MVAIC's claim representative rather than sua sponte rejecting it due to a de minimis violation of Uniform Rules for the Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.4. The submissions in support of MVAIC's motion for summary judgment made a prima facie showing that plaintiff's assignor had failed to timely file a notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a]), and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its assignor had timely filed a notice of claim or sought leave to file a late notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [b], [c]). Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 20, 2009 is vacated, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

NOT NO-FAULT

Ferrara v De Ming Song, 2010 NY Slip Op 51472(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

The Civil Court granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant had made out a prima facie case and that, among other things, the affirmed reports of plaintiff's medical provider in Florida, submitted in opposition to defendant's motion, were not in admissible form, as the doctor was not licensed in the State of New York and, thus, was not authorized to execute an affirmation under CPLR 2106. The court noted, however, that had the reports been in admissible form, they would have been sufficient to demonstrate a serious injury.

Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to renew defendant's motion and, upon renewal, to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that triable issues of fact exist. In support of the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his Florida medical provider, sworn to before a notary public commissioned by the State of Florida, and resubmitted the provider's reports. The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the condition that plaintiff's attorneys pay the sum of $100 to defendant's attorneys as costs, and the sum of $100 to the New York State Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. This appeal by defendant ensued in which the sole issue raised is that the Civil Court erred in granting plaintiff leave to renew.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to renew, thereby allowing plaintiff the opportunity to submit its papers in proper form (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Arkin v Resnick, 68 AD3d 692 [2009]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389 [2008]; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; Joseph v Joseph, 24 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51719[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Shaw v Looking Glass [*2]Assoc., LP, 8 AD3d 100 [2004]; Acosta v Rubin, 2 AD3d 657 [2003]; Ramos v Dekhtyar, 301 AD2d 428 [2003]). We note that defendant has raised no objection to the form of plaintiff's resubmitted papers.

Nicholas Cabrini, Inc. v Hagenbart, 2010 NY Slip Op 51443(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

CPLR 3123 (a) requires a party to respond to a notice to admit within 20 days of service of the notice "or within such further time as the court may allow," and further provides that "the party to whom the request is directed [must] serve[] upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters" (emphasis added).

After reviewing defendants' response to plaintiff's notice to admit, wherein defendants explained why they could not either admit or deny the first item in plaintiff's notice to admit and denied the other two items in the notice, we find that the Civil Court properly determined that defendants' response was not so evasive as to be a nullity.

Turning to the timeliness of defendants' response to the notice, in Alford v Progressive Equity Funding Corp. (144 AD2d 756 [1988]), a case analogous to the instant case, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on December 2, 1987, based on the defendants' failure to respond to the plaintiffs' notice to admit, which had been served on November 5, 1987. On December 7, 1987, the defendants served a response to the plaintiffs' notice to admit. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and, on appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the Supreme Court had properly exercised its discretionary power to extend the time within which the defendants had to respond to the plaintiffs' notice to admit. The Appellate Division further held that since the defendants had not admitted all of the material facts at issue, the Supreme Court had properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Similarly, defendants in the case at bar were 15 days late in serving their response to plaintiff's notice to admit. Thus, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in extending the time within which defendants had to respond to the notice. Since defendants have not admitted all of the material facts at issue, the Civil Court properly denied the branch of plaintiff's motion which sought summary judgment (see id.). Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

What, no cite to Dan Med? Bajaj? I'm disappointed. If any of you want to read further on the use of NTAs in no-fault. I co-authored an article in the NYLJ on the issue with Dave Barshay, the new author of NFP, and while the AT has not seen fit to cite to it, the Appellate Division has. Click here to get all the links and what not.