No-Fault Case Law

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.

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.

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.

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.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Renelique Medical Services, P.C., failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to attend the EUOs justified the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the court was that the defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and therefore the order for summary judgment was affirmed. The court declined to consider the plaintiff's remaining contention as it was being raised for the first time on appeal.

The court considered the denial of motions for leave to reargue and vacate prior judgments which granted petitioner's applications to vacate master arbitration awards. The main issue decided was whether the judgments were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. The holding of the court was that the Civil Court properly denied the motions to vacate the judgments, as the respondents' contentions that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged conflicts of the arbitrator amounted to nothing more than defense arguments which could have been asserted prior to the entry of judgment. Therefore, the orders affirming the denial of the motions were upheld, and the remaining arguments of the respondents were found to be unavailing.

The issue in this case was the determination of an arbitration award between Fast Care Medical Diagnostics, PLLC and Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO) in respect to medical services provided to an infant patient. Fast Care submitted claims for medical services rendered to a 15-year-old PV who was covered under no-fault insurance. However, GEICO deemed the treatment unnecessary and denied the claims, leading to arbitration. The court found that the arbitrator's award was irrational as it misapplied CPLR 1209 and disregarded established law, and further determined that the master arbitrator's ruling that the assignment of benefits was not effective was not based on any requirement set forth in the law or regulations. The order to vacate the awards and direct further arbitration proceedings as to the merits of Fast Care's claims was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Fast Care was not entitled to an award of an attorney's fee, as the arbitrator did not reach the issue of whether the subject claims were "overdue" under Insurance Law § 5106 [a].

The relevant facts considered by the court were that FEMA Medical Supply, Inc. sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Country-Wide Insurance Company. FEMA appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether FEMA had established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that its bills were submitted to the insurer and either not paid or denied within the requisite 30-day period. The holding of the court was that FEMA failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it had mailed its bills to the defendant, and therefore the order denying their motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The main issues decided in this case were whether a provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, based on the timely submission of claim forms, and whether the defendant had properly denied the claims at issue. The court considered the evidence of the plaintiff's submission of the claim forms and the defendant's receipt of those claim forms, based on standard mailing practices and procedures. The holding of the court was that the defendant had demonstrated it received the claim forms long after the plaintiff claimed to have mailed them, which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's practices and procedures resulted in the timely mailing of the claim forms to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the second through fourth causes of action, and the motion for summary judgment was denied.

The court considered the fact that defendant failed to establish the timely and proper mailing of the independent medical examination (IME) scheduling letters to the plaintiff's assignor. Defendant's moving papers stated that the IME scheduling letters were sent to the assignor at an address different from the one indicated by the plaintiff's NF-3 form, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that the plaintiff's assignor was represented by the attorney to whom copies of the IME scheduling letters were sent. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had properly scheduled the IMEs, and the court held that the defendant's moving papers failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.