December 17, 2014

Skymed Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 51833(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/skymed-med-p-c-v-tri-state-consumer-ins-2014-ny-slip-op51833u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 17, 2014
Citation: 2014 NY Slip Op 51833(U) · 46 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Verification requests
Legal questions: Outstanding verification and premature actions · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Skymed Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins., 46 Misc 3d 132(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 51833(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014)

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.

The provider's action was premature because the insurer proved timely verification requests and nonreceipt of the requested material. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order and granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of initial and follow-up verification requests relating to the claim. The provider did not show that it had supplied the requested verification before commencing the action. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (a), the insurer's 30-day period to pay or deny the claim therefore had not begun to run.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Skymed Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 51833(U))

[*1]

Skymed Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins.

2014 NY Slip Op 51833(U) [46 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on December 17, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-2229 Q C

Skymed Medical, P.C. as Assignee of CYNTHIA SANTA-ANA, Respondent,
against
Tri-State Consumer Insurance, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered July 11, 2012. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order 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 from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavits submitted by defendant in support of its motion established that defendant had timely mailed requests and follow-up requests for verification related to the claim at issue (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]). Defendant demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification, and plaintiff did not show that the verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action. Consequently, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; 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]; D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51727[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), and, thus, plaintiff’s action is premature.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 17, 2014

Legal questions (2)

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.

Outstanding verification and premature actions

Open the full map

Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?

This decision: Timely requests went unanswered; the claim is not overdue and the action is premature

Held the action premature because the insurer timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests, never received the verification, and the provider did not show it was provided before suit.

Premature: verification outstandingNonresponse denial upheldTriable issueInsurer's showing failsProvider compliedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 374 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 151 (this one included) are in the same category.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the insurer's affidavits sufficient to establish timely mailing of its initial and follow-up verification requests, supporting dismissal of the action as premature.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)The 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)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 09484)An insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05413)The hospitals' first and fifth claims were dismissed because policy limits were exhausted and requested verification remained outstanding.
D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51727(U))The provider's incomplete verification responses left the insurer's time to pay or deny untriggered and the action premature.

Similar decisions

T & S Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51453(U))The provider's affidavit raised a triable issue as to whether it had supplied the requested verification.
Triangle R, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50256(U))The provider's denial of receipt did not rebut proof of timely mailed verification requests, and its unanswered claims were premature.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51721(U))The provider raised a verification receipt issue on its first claim, but its second claim was submitted late and timely denied.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51408(U))The provider's opposing affidavit raised a triable issue as to whether its action was premature for outstanding verification.
SS Med. Care, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U))The provider's action was premature because the insurer proved timely verification requests and nonreceipt of the requested information.