No-Fault Case Law

The court considered the fact that the defendant had fully paid the plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The main issue decided was whether the proof submitted by the defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms at issue. The court held that the proof submitted by the defendant was indeed sufficient to establish proper mailing, and that the plaintiff's remaining contention lacked merit. Therefore, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant insurance company was precluded from raising its defense that verification had not been provided, because it had not timely denied the plaintiff's claims on that ground. The court considered the fact that the defendant had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and the plaintiff had cross-moved for summary judgment. The court ultimately held that the defendant was not precluded from raising its defense and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, while denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,353 was reversed.

The court considered the fact that the defendant had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification, and that it had not received the requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was precluded from raising its defense that verification had not been provided because it had not timely denied the plaintiff's claims on that ground, and whether the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment should be granted. The holding of the case was that the judgment was reversed, the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was vacated, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied. As a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

The Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, dismissed a complaint brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The issue at trial was whether the services in question were medically necessary. The court accepted the defendant's expert witness's testimony and found that the defendant had demonstrated that the services were not medically necessary. It was then the plaintiff's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the services rendered were medically necessary, but the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to meet that burden, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. The judgment of the Civil Court was affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by Intazam Khan, M.D., as assignee of Thomas Altimon, attempting to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The holding of the court was that there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue, and therefore the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint by Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services. Therefore, the order was affirmed, and the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with the case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Acupuncture Now, P.C., as an assignee of Franco, Nereyda, appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established timely denials of the claims underlying that portion of the complaint. The main issue decided was whether defendant's proof established the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms and the application of the workers' compensation fee schedule. The holding of the case was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed. The court found that defendant had established the timely denials of the claims and that the application of the workers' compensation fee schedule also lacked merit.

The relevant facts of this case involve an action by a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff appealed from an order of the Civil Court, which granted the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint's claims to recover for services billed under specific CPT codes. The main issue in this case was whether the defendant had established, as a matter of law, its defense that the fees charged for the services exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule. The court held that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor in calculating the reimbursement rate. As a result, the branches of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint's claims to recover for those services were denied, and the order was reversed.

The relevant facts the court considered in this case involved an action by a medical care provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issues decided by the court were whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third through tenth causes of action, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on these causes of action. The holding of the case was that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action and that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the fourth through tenth causes of action. The court found that the defendant had failed to establish its defense that the fees charged exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule, and that the initial and follow-up letters scheduling independent medical examinations had not been timely mailed. Therefore, the order was modified to deny the branches of the defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third through tenth causes of action.

The court considered whether the defendant, Global Liberty Insurance, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by Faith Acupuncture, P.C. as the assignee of Quinche Mauro, seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The main issues decided were whether the defendant established its defense that the fees charged exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule, and whether the defendant demonstrated that the independent medical examinations (IMEs) had been properly scheduled and that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs. The holding of the case was that the defendant failed to establish its defenses as a matter of law, and therefore, its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.