June 28, 2019
City Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51102(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/city-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-ins-2019-ny-slip-op-51102u/
- Decided
- June 28, 2019
- Citation
- 2019 NY Slip Op 51102(U) · 64 Misc 3d 134(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
- Issues
- EUO no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at City Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51102(U))
| City Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51102(U) [64 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on June 28, 2019 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected in part through October 25, 2019; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on June 28, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-1993 K C
against
State Farm Insurance, Appellant.
Rivkin Radler, LLP (Cheryl F. Korman and Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered July 28, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered July 28, 2017 as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
The record indicates that, in response to defendant’s EUO requests, plaintiff sent letters essentially stating that it would not appear for the requested EUOs unless defendant set forth its reasons for requesting the EUOs. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion, as it found that there was a triable issue of fact as to “whether Defendant’s request for EUO was made in good faith, under objective standards.”
“No ‘provision of No-Fault Regulations 68 requires an insurer’s notice of scheduling an EUO to specify the reason(s) why the insurer is requiring the EUOs’ ” (Flow Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co.,44 Misc 3d 132[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51142[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014], quoting Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 06-12-16 [December 2006]). Similarly, “[t]here is no requirement in the regulation that a No-Fault insurer must provide a copy of their internal guidelines [regarding objective justification] for requiring an EUO upon the request of a claimant for benefits” (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept [*2]No. 02-10-14 [October 2002]). The Department of Financial Services’[FN1] interpretation of the No-Fault Regulations is entitled to deference unless “irrational or unreasonable” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 333 [1996]), which is not the case here. Thus, defendant “was not required to provide the reason for its demand” either in its scheduling letters or, by extension, “in response to an objection from plaintiff” (Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 62 Misc 3d 145[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 28, 2019
Footnotes
Footnote 1: In 2011, the Insurance Department and the Banking Department merged into the newly created “Department of Financial Services.”
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer entitled to summary judgment on the EUO no-show because it was not required to state its reasons for the EUOs in the scheduling letters or in response to the provider's objection, so no triable issue of good faith arose.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Flow Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51142(U)) FollowedAn insurer's EUO scheduling notice need not specify why the EUO is required.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604)An insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50171(U)) FollowedThe provider's challenge to the EUO demands failed because it offered no proof of mailing its objection letter.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- NY Wellness Med. P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50382(U)) FollowedThe insurer's delay notices referring only to the assignor's EUO failed to toll the payment period for three provider bills.
- New York Core Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50599(U))An EUO request sent after 15 business days but within 30 calendar days tolls the time to pay or deny, with a reduction for lateness.
Similar decisions
- Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50423(U))An insurer need not disclose the reasons or objective standards for its EUO demands in scheduling letters or in response to a provider's objection.
- Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50421(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51880(U))The provider's failure to respond to EUO requests foreclosed its objections and made discovery on their reasonableness unnecessary.
- Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.