No-Fault Case Law
Jamhil Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51644(U))
August 23, 2012
The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the defendant had timely mailed letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) for the plaintiff's assignor. However, the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The defendant had also timely denied the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the assignor had failed to appear at the scheduled IMEs. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Biddle v Safeco Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51642(U))
August 23, 2012
The relevant facts considered by the court in the case of Biddle v Safeco Ins. Co. included a dispute over first-party no-fault benefits, with the plaintiff, a medical provider, seeking to recover assigned benefits from the defendant insurance company. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The court held that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as the defendant's motion papers failed to establish the timeliness of the denial of claim form and the defense that the plaintiff's assignor had misrepresented her residence in connection with the insurance policy. The court found that the affidavit of the defendant's claims representative did not constitute evidence in admissible form, and as a result, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Quality Health Prods. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51641(U))
August 23, 2012
The court considered the fact that the defendant had timely mailed the initial and follow-up requests for verification to the plaintiff, but had not received the requested verification. As a result, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run and the plaintiff's action was found to be premature. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's failure to receive the requested verification prior to the commencement of the action justified the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.
Village Chiropractic v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51640(U))
August 23, 2012
The court considered the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case where a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services at issue, based on the affidavit of the plaintiff's treating chiropractor. The court held that there was indeed a triable issue of fact, and therefore denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the court found that the award of motion costs to the plaintiff was not an improper exercise of discretion. Therefore, the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed by the court.
Neomy Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51639(U))
August 23, 2012
The relevant facts considered by the court in the case of Neomy Medical, P.C. v Clarendon National Insurance Company involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the insurance company. The main issue decided was whether the insurance company had timely denied the claims at issue and if it was precluded from raising its defense of lack of medical necessity. The court held that the insurance company's affidavit failed to establish that it had timely denied the claims, and therefore, the provider's claims were not precluded. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the insurance company's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Neomy Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51638(U))
August 23, 2012
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether there was a question of fact as to the medical necessity of the services in question. The court held that the plaintiff's submission of an affidavit from its doctor demonstrated the existence of a question of fact as to medical necessity, and therefore, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The decision was affirmed without costs.
Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 22242)
August 17, 2012
The relevant facts of the case include Abdelghani Kinane sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident and MRI work being performed by Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) requested verification from Elmont, who subsequently claimed to have mailed the requested verification, but NYCMFIC denied receiving it. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the action was premature since its time to pay or deny the claim had not yet run. The main issue decided was whether Elmont's action to obtain payment of first-party no-fault benefits was premature due to NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. The court held that Elmont responded to NYCMFIC's verification requests and that NYCMFIC failed to offer any proof that the material was not received, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court denied summary judgment to the defendant and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Willets Point Chiropractic P.C. v Allstate Ins. (2012 NY Slip Op 51614(U))
August 16, 2012
The court considered the fact that two separate plaintiffs, as assignees of Mirna Flores, filed separate actions against Allstate Insurance seeking compensation for professional chiropractic services in the form of "manipulation under anesthesia" (MUA). The defendant denied the applications based on an independent chiropractic examination report that concluded no further treatment was necessary. The court also examined the treatment history of the patient, including injuries and related medical procedures. The main issues were whether chiropractors are permitted to perform MUA and to what extent they can manipulate body parts other than the vertebral column. The holding of the case was that the plaintiffs' causes of action in both cases were dismissed because the chiropractors failed to establish the medical necessity of the MUA and were prohibited from performing MUA in New York. They were also not permitted to collect the full rate for their services.
All Star Wellness Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51630(U))
August 7, 2012
The relevant facts that the court considered in this case were that a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the insurance company had timely denied the claims at issue, asserting that the assignor had failed to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) and that certain services billed for were not medically necessary. The main issues decided were whether the insurance company had timely denied the claims and whether the denial was valid based on the assignor's failure to appear for the IME and the lack of medical necessity for the services billed. The holding of the court was that the insurance company's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, as they had appropriately denied the claims based on the assignor's failure to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage and the lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to these defenses.
Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51629(U))
August 7, 2012
The relevant facts the court considered were that an insurance company was denying claims for first-party no-fault benefits on the grounds of lack of medical necessity, and the provider was seeking to recover the assigned benefits. The main issue decided was whether the denial of claim form had been timely mailed and whether the affirmed independent medical examination report provided a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor's determination of lack of medical necessity. The holding of the court was that the insurance company had sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim form and provided a report that shifted the burden to the provider to rebut the insurance company's prima facie showing. Since the provider failed to submit an affidavit or affirmation from a medical professional, the court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.