No-Fault Case Law

The court considered the fact that the defendant had timely denied the plaintiff's claim and submitted affirmations and reports demonstrating the lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. The main issue decided was whether the supplies provided to the plaintiff's assignor were medically necessary. The holding of the court was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted, as their showing that the supplies were not medically necessary was unrebutted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court reversed the order and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Statewide Insurance Company. The main issue decided by the court was whether the hospital had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in the case. The court held that the hospital had failed to demonstrate that the NF-5 hospital facility form or the UB04 was the hospital's business record and therefore admissible as proof that the services were rendered, affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The relevant facts of this case involved an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant in the case moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The main issue decided in the case was whether the defendant had properly denied the plaintiff's claims based on the assignor's failure to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, as the defendant had submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs, and therefore the defendant was not precluded from raising the issue of the assignor's failure to satisfy the condition precedent to coverage.

The court considered the denial of claim form, the affirmed peer review report, and the timely mailing of the denial of the claim. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The holding of the case was that the defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted, as the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

The New York and Presbyterian Hospital sought compensatory claims from Country-Wide Insurance Company after treating Joaquin Benitiez who was hurt in an automobile accident. The insurance company did not receive the required written notice 30 days after the accident, as stated in the New York insurance regulations. The hospital then submitted a claim 40 days after the accident which prompted the insurance company to deny the hospital's claim, as they had not been given adequate notice. While both parties filed for summary judgement, Presbyterian won initially. However, upon reviewing a number of regulations set forth in the New York insurance regulations, the Court found that these regulations did not support the hospital's claim. Therefore, the hospital was not entitled to no-fault benefits. According to the 30-day notice of accident requirement in the New York insurance regulations, the hospital could not recover no-fault benefits despite the timely submission of the required proof of claim. This was also in line with the goals of New York no-fault automobile insurance system.

The court considered the denial of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. This was an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the defendant's motion was denied. The main issue decided was whether the defendant established that there was a lack of medical necessity for the claims. The holding of the case was that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking to dismiss the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth causes of action were granted, and the order was affirmed. Additionally, the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking the dismissal of the sixth cause of action was denied as the defendant had not demonstrated that the medical necessity defense was preserved.

The court considered the denial of claim form that was timely mailed by the defendant, which denied the claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity. The defendant submitted a sworn peer review report, which provided a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. As a result, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to rebut the defendant's showing. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had established that the services were not medically necessary, and whether the plaintiff had rebutted this showing. The court held that the defendant's showing that the services were not medically necessary was unrebutted by the plaintiff, and as a result, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff appealed from an order granting the defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff's attempt to submit opposition to the motion was rejected as untimely, so the court only considered the moving papers in making its decision. The main issue decided was whether the judgment entered pursuant to the order should be considered as having been entered on default, and therefore not subject to appeal by the defaulting party. The holding of the case was that the judgment entered on default was not subject to appeal, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, GEICO General Insurance Co., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by the plaintiff, AVA Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of EGBUNIKE CHINWE and STEPHEN OSAGIEDE, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the timely mailing of claim denial forms by the defendant and the use of workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services in determining the amount owed to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, as it had properly used the fee schedule for the services rendered and had paid the plaintiff the full amount they were entitled to prior to the commencement of the action. The plaintiff's remaining arguments were not considered by the court as they were raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the court reversed the order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issues in this case involved a provider's attempt to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and the denial of the insurance company's motion for summary judgment. The court considered the failure of the assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the insurance company to establish the nonappearance. The court held that the insurance company's submission of affidavits from the independent medical review service and the chiropractor were sufficient to establish the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The court ultimately reversed the judgment, vacated the order, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.