November 26, 2013

ABA Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52002(U))

Headnote

The court considered the dispute between ABA Chiropractic, P.C. and GEICO General Insurance Company regarding the medical necessity of services provided by the plaintiff to Yolanda Rivera. The main issue decided was whether the services at issue were medically necessary, as defendant argued they were not. The holding of the court was that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services, reversing the order granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court also declined plaintiff's request to limit the issues for trial.

Reported in New York Official Reports at ABA Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52002(U))

ABA Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52002(U)) [*1]
ABA Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
2013 NY Slip Op 52002(U) [41 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on November 26, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 26, 2013

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


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-2505 K C.
ABA Chiropractic, P.C. as Assignee of YOLANDA RIVERA, Appellant, —

against

GEICO General Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered August 10, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the services at issue were not medically necessary. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Upon a review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. We decline plaintiff’s request to limit the issues for trial (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 26, 2013