No-Fault Case Law
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50831(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment in a case regarding the recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the lower court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross motion. The holding of the court was that the order of the Civil Court was affirmed, with the costs of $25, for the reasons stated in a similar case decided at the same time.
Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50830(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered whether the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed and whether the claims at issue had been timely denied by the defendant. The main issue decided was whether the amounts sought to be recovered by the plaintiff, for services rendered prior to April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule. The holding of the case was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, as the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Therefore, the order was modified to provide that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50829(U))
June 1, 2018
The relevant facts the court considered in this case were related to a dispute over whether a provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether the amounts sought to be recovered were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule. The holding of the court was that the branches of the defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through fifth causes of action were denied, as the defendant did not sufficiently demonstrate that it was not precluded from asserting its proffered defense, and the plaintiff also failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied. Therefore, the order was modified to provide that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment were denied.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50828(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered an appeal from an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that for the reasons stated in a related case, the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50827(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, in a case involving Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. GEICO appealed from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action based on lack of medical necessity. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The court held that after reviewing the record, there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services, and therefore affirmed the order denying GEICO's cross motion for summary judgment.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50825(U))
June 1, 2018
The relevant facts of the case were that the plaintiff, Active Care Medical Supply Corp, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of a individual. The defendant, American Transit Ins. Co., filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50824(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue was whether the provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the court affirmed the order, with costs. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, for the reasons stated in another similar case.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50822(U))
June 1, 2018
The court considered a case brought by a medical supply company seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the medical supply company was entitled to the first-party no-fault benefits it sought. The court held that the order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed. The court cited a similar case in its decision.
Compas v Travelers Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50821(U))
June 1, 2018
The relevant facts considered by the court were that a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed by the defendant. The main issue decided by the court was whether the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and whether the affidavits submitted by the defendant established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed. The holding of the court was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed, as the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was found to be sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for EUOs, and the affidavits submitted by the defendant established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50820(U))
June 1, 2018
The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and a medical supply company over first-party no-fault benefits. The insurance company had scheduled an examination under oath (EUO) for the medical supply company, but the medical supply company failed to appear for the EUOs. The insurance company then moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed and that the medical supply company had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The main issue before the court was whether the insurance company had properly scheduled the EUOs and whether the medical supply company's failure to appear justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court's order, holding that the insurance company had timely mailed the scheduling letters and that the medical supply company's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs justified the dismissal of the complaint.