Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51863(U))

Decided on December 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-432 K C

The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814 are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion which sought summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814 on the ground that defendant had fully paid plaintiff for those services in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely mailed (see St. [*2]Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814 in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814 are granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

ENTER: