No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts the court considered were that TAM Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits that had been assigned to them. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The holding of the case was that the order granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds of plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath was affirmed.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, TAM Medical Supply Corp., had filed a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from 21st Century Insurance Company. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and whether the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed. The court determined that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at the EUOs, as established by the affirmations of the attorneys and certified transcripts. It was also found that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed. As a result, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff's remaining contentions were deemed to lack merit.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. State Farm had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based on this failure to appear. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath warranted the dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to appear for the examinations under oath did warrant dismissal of the complaint, and therefore affirmed the lower court's order granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment.

The main issue considered in the case of Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath and if this failure justified the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, resulting in the court affirming the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The relevant fact considered was the plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirement to appear for the examinations under oath, and the main issue decided was whether this failure justified the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

The court considered the fact that the provider, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion was affirmed. This decision was based on the reasons stated in a previous case involving the same parties. Therefore, the court upheld the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath.

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would result in their failure to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. Defendant had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on these grounds, and the Civil Court granted their motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. The decision was affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department, with the court holding that the order was affirmed and costs of $25 were to be paid by the plaintiff. The decision was based on the precedent set by a previous case involving the same parties and similar circumstances.

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as the assignee of Herminio Veras, was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 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 appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The plaintiff had also cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike the defendant's answer and to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands. The court ultimately affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion, with $25 costs. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands was denied. This was based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, as well as for the reasons stated in a prior case involving the same parties.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath as required by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., in order to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath was sufficient grounds for the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands was affirmed, with $25 costs, based on the reasoning stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (51 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

The main issue in the case of Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. was whether the provider, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which would justify the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court also considered the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. The court ultimately affirmed the order of the Civil Court, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion. This means that the defendant was successful in dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court cited a previous case with similar circumstances in their decision.

In the case of Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a healthcare provider, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, an insurance company. The defendant had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. In response, the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike the defendant's answer and to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted, and whether the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands should be denied. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's cross motion was affirmed, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant. In summary, the court upheld the decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff's cross motion, ultimately resulting in a dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint.