No-Fault Case Law
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50877(U))
June 8, 2018
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.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50876(U))
June 8, 2018
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.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50875(U))
June 8, 2018
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.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50874(U))
June 8, 2018
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a medical provider, had moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, while the defendant, an insurance company, cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath justified the dismissal of their complaint. The holding of the case 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 the court citing a related case for the reasons for their decision.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50873(U))
June 8, 2018
The main issue in this case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits when the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant had cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff could not recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits due to their failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50872(U))
June 8, 2018
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, which was the basis for the defendant, GEICO Ins. Co., to deny the claim for first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath justified the denial of the claim. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the examinations under oath justified the denial of the claim.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50871(U))
June 8, 2018
The Court considered a case where a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but was denied by the defendant insurance company on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The main issue decided in this case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the first through fourth causes of action, and whether the defendant was entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. The holding of the case was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for partial summary judgment was affirmed, with $25 costs. The court cited a similar case and its decision in affirming this holding.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50870(U))
June 8, 2018
The court considered a case in which an anesthesia service provider sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO Insurance company. The main issue that was decided in the case was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would justify the dismissal of the complaint. The court affirmed the order from the Civil Court, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled exams under oath, and therefore, the denial of the motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment were affirmed.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50869(U))
June 8, 2018
The main issue in the case was whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits if they failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had failed to show up for these examinations, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on these grounds. The court's holding was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits due to their failure to appear for the scheduled examinations.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50868(U))
June 8, 2018
The main issues of the case were whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and whether this failure justified the denial of first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff and the cross motion for summary judgment by the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and that this justified the denial of first-party no-fault benefits. The court affirmed the order of the Civil Court, which denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross motion.