September 15, 2016

Dr. Ronda M. Bachenheimer/Meadowbrook Chiropractic v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51324(U))

Headnote

The court considered the denial of a motion for summary judgment in a case where a chiropractic office sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The holding of the court was that there was, in fact, a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services, and as a result, the order denying the motion for summary judgment was affirmed. The case was decided on September 15, 2016, by the Appellate Term, Second Department.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Dr. Ronda M. Bachenheimer/Meadowbrook Chiropractic v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51324(U))

Dr. Ronda M. Bachenheimer/Meadowbrook Chiropractic v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51324(U)) [*1]
Dr. Ronda M. Bachenheimer/Meadowbrook Chiropractic v Allstate Ins. Co.
2016 NY Slip Op 51324(U) [53 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on September 15, 2016
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 15, 2016

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


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-508 Q C
Dr. Ronda M. Bachenheimer/Meadowbrook Chiropractic, as Assignee of Brian Ficeto, Appellant,

against

Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered February 19, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination 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 affirmed.

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


Decision Date: September 15, 2016