August 6, 2015
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51240(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op51240u/
- Decided
- August 6, 2015
- Citation
- 2015 NY Slip Op 51240(U) · 48 Misc 3d 141(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
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 Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51240(U))
| Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 51240(U) [48 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on August 6, 2015 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on August 6, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-789 Q C
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered March 4, 2013. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
As to plaintiff’s second cause of action, the affidavit by plaintiff’s billing manager was sufficient to demonstrate that the claim had been mailed to defendant in accordance with plaintiff’s standard office practice and procedure (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]). However, the affidavit by defendant’s no-fault examiner was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received that claim. Thus, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant’s time to pay or deny this claim ever began to run (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; cf. Bright Med. Supply Co. v Tri State Consumer Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51122[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).
As to the remaining causes of action, defendant’s cross motion was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s initial and follow-up requests for verification as to the claims upon which these causes of action were based. However, as plaintiff argues on appeal, plaintiff’s opposition was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had responded to those verification requests. Therefore, neither party is entitled to summary judgment on these causes of action (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2015
Legal questions (3)
Questions 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 a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The mailing proof (of either party) left only a triable issue of fact on whether or when the item was mailed or received
Held the billing manager's affidavit of standard office practice proved the claim was mailed, but the insurer examiner's affidavit raised a triable issue as to whether the claim was ever received.
Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 99 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?
This decision: Fact issues remain on whether the verification defense applies
Held that, although the insurer showed the provider failed to respond to initial and follow-up verification requests, the provider's opposition raised a triable issue as to whether it had responded.
Of the 374 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 114 (this one included) are in the same category.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the provider's billing manager's affidavit of standard office practice sufficient to show the second claim was mailed, but denied its motion because the insurer's examiner raised a triable issue of receipt.
Of the 1,063 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 511 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) FollowedAn insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24145) FollowedThe provider's mail-record affidavit raised a triable issue as to whether the insurer mailed its verification requests.
- Bright Med. Supply Co. v Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51122(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer established nonreceipt of the provider's claim, and the provider failed to show proper mailing to the insurer's address.
Similar decisions
- Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U))The insurer established proper mailing of verification requests and denials and timely denial after receipt of verification.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51441(U))An insurer need not pay or deny a claim upon receiving only a partial response to its verification requests.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50254(U))The insurer's untimely denials precluded its EUO nonappearance defense to eight claims, and its denial of receipt did not defeat two others.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51356(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of the denials supporting its EUO nonappearance defense.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51000(U))The insurer failed to establish its fraudulent-procurement defense, and the provider raised a factual issue about outstanding verification.