December 10, 2015

Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 09184)

Headnote

The court took into consideration whether a fee-sharing arrangement between a medical service provider and a management company was considered unprofessional conduct. The issue at hand was determining if the fee-sharing arrangement constituted a valid defense to a no-fault action. The court decided that while the fee-sharing arrangement may have constituted unprofessional conduct, it did not serve as a defense to a no-fault action. The court denied the petition to vacate the arbitrator's award and ultimately confirmed the said award, thereby affirming the decision of the Supreme Court.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 09184)

Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C.

2015 NY Slip Op 09184 [134 AD3d 495]

December 10, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2016

[*1]

In the Matter of Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
New Way Massage Therapy P.C., as Assignee of Nancy Febus, Respondent.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant.

The Geller Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn (Abraham J. Meir of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Whether or not the fee-sharing arrangement at issue constitutes unprofessional conduct (see 8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [4]), it does not constitute a defense to a no-fault action (compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005] [“insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims”]). It is solely a matter for the appropriate state licensing board (see e.g. Necula v Glass, 231 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1996]; see also H & H Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 1075, 1078 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2015]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30874(U).]