No-Fault Case Law

The main issue in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed with a cost of $25. The court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which was grounds for dismissal of the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff in this case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided in this case was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath justified the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co. The plaintiff had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath justified the denial of their motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs.

The main issue decided in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when they failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations as scheduled, and the defendant argued that this failure justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately held that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs. The court's decision was based on similar reasoning to a related case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. etc., as Assignee of Saint-Louis, Lydia v GEICO Ins. Co., which was decided at the same time.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the provider, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed by the court. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath led to the dismissal of the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had moved for summary judgment to recover first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover no-fault benefits despite their failure to attend scheduled examinations under oath. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with costs. This means that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover no-fault benefits due to their failure to comply with the scheduled examinations under oath.

The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, GEICO Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath warranted the dismissal of the complaint and denial of their motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed. This decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, and it was consistent with a similar case, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. etc., as Assignee of Saint-Louis, Lydia v GEICO Ins. Co., which was decided in conjunction with this case.

The main issues decided in this legal case were a provider's attempt to recover first-party no-fault benefits, and the defendant's argument that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order was affirmed, with the court determining that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which justified the dismissal of the complaint. This decision was consistent with a similar case decided at the same time.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., had cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath warranted the dismissal of their complaint. The holding of the court was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with the reason stated in another case.

The case involved a dispute between Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services and GEICO Insurance Company. Gentlecare had sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits and moved for summary judgment, while GEICO cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. GEICO argued that the services provided were not medically necessary and that Gentlecare had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied Gentlecare's motion and granted GEICO's cross motion, having cited the failure to appear for EUOs as the reason for dismissal. However, the Appellate Term found that the Civil Court had erred in dismissing the first cause of action on the grounds of lack of medical necessity. The case was remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination on that branch of the cross motion.