No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts the court considered in Veraso Medical Supply Corp. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. were that the plaintiff, Veraso Medical Supply Corp., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact. The holding of the court was that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient, and therefore the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The case involved Veraso Medical Supply Corp. bringing an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, which granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied Veraso's cross motion for summary judgment. Veraso's main contention on appeal was that its affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact, but the court disagreed. The court cited previous cases to support its decision and ultimately held that the order was affirmed.

The relevant facts of this case involved an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied, based on the plaintiff's arguments. The court held that the plaintiff's arguments as to why the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied were not properly before the court, as they were being raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore declined to consider them. As a result, the court affirmed the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main legal issue in this case was whether the complaint against an insurance company seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits should be dismissed. The insurance company argued that the claims were submitted more than 45 days after the supplies had been furnished, lacked medical necessity, and that the fees sought exceeded the amounts permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The court considered the affidavit of the insurance company's claims representative, which established that the claims had been submitted late and that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the insurance company's showing, as the claim forms were dated more than 45 days after the supplies at issue were furnished. Ultimately, the court held that the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted, reversing the lower court's order and granting the insurance company's motion.

The relevant facts considered in this case include the provider's attempt to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and the method of service of the summons and complaint, which alleged service by mail but did not contain an acknowledgment of service. The main issue decided was whether the provider had obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The holding of the case was that the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The court cited a similar case, Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co., in which the order to dismiss the complaint was reversed based on similar circumstances.

The court considered the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and the sufficiency of the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney in establishing this failure. The main issue decided was whether the affirmation was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs. The holding of the court was that the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was deemed sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that the plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response. Therefore, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

The court considered an appeal from an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. This case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the lower court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment should be affirmed. The holding of the court was that the order was affirmed, with $25 costs, and the decision was based on the reasons stated in a similar case decided simultaneously.

The court considered the case of Energy Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Reid, Shamel W. v Nationwide Ins., in which the plaintiff appealed from an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court affirmed the order, with the reasoning stated in the case of MSB Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Reid, Shamel W. v Nationwide Ins. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered a case in which Hands On Physical Therapy Care, as the assignee of Jacqueline Drouillard, appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs. The court's decision was based on the reasons stated in a similar case, PFJ Med. Care, P.C., as Assignee of Simmond, Tylon B. v Nationwide Ins. The decision was entered on June 10, 2022.

The court considered the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's affirmations and transcripts of the examinations under oath were sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the examinations. The holding of the case was that the affirmations submitted by the defendant's counsel and the transcripts of the examinations under oath were indeed sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the examinations, and therefore, the order denying the motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed by the court.