No-Fault Case Law

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant insurer had timely denied the plaintiff's claims on the grounds of lack of medical necessity, and whether the defendant had provided sufficient proof to establish this defense. The appellant, Jamaica Medical Supply, Inc., argued that the defendant failed to provide proof in admissible form to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity due to the use of electronic stamped facsimiles of the peer reviewers' signatures on affirmations executed by the peer review physicians. However, the court held that the affidavit submitted by the defendant established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms, and that the defendant had submitted peer review reports as well as affirmations executed by the physicians who had performed the peer reviews, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was no medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. Therefore, the judgment of the Civil Court, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, was affirmed.

A provider sued MVAIC for assigned first-party no-fault benefits and the Civil Court granted it summary judgment. MVAIC showed that no timely notice of claim was filed and that leave to file a late notice had not been sought under Insurance Law § 5208. The Appellate Term held that the assignor was therefore not a covered person under § 5221 (b) (2), and a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment had not been met. It reversed, denied the plaintiff's motion and granted MVAIC's cross motion dismissing the complaint.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant insurance company was liable for no-fault benefits for medical equipment provided by the plaintiff. The court considered the evidence presented, including claim denial forms and peer review reports by doctors, to determine the medical necessity of the equipment in question. The defendant had denied the claims on the ground that the medical equipment provided was not medically necessary, and the court found that the evidence presented by the defendant was lacking sufficient support for their determination. In response to the defendant's cross motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a doctor that raised a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the equipment. The court ultimately reversed the judgment, vacated the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The relevant facts of this case involved an action by a medical care provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The main issues decided in this case were whether the provider's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, and whether the insurance company's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. The holding of the case was that the judgment was reversed, and the branches of the insurance company's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint were denied. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings. The court found that the insurance company had not conclusively established its defense for claims beyond a certain date, and therefore the complaint seeking to recover on those claims was not dismissed. The court also found that the insurance company had failed to timely deny one of the claims, and therefore that claim was not dismissed.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the plaintiff, Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C., seeking to recover claims for no-fault benefits on various dates. The court considered the defendant's timely mailing of denial of claim forms, peer review reports, and independent medical examination reports which provided evidence that the medical services at issue were not medically necessary. The court found that the defendant had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and that the plaintiff had not rebutted this showing. As a result, the court affirmed the order in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint seeking to recover benefits on the specified dates.

The relevant facts of this case involved an appeal by a medical provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company had filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part by the lower court. The provider appealed this decision, arguing that there were certain claims for which the judgment should have been reversed and denied. The main issue decided by the court was whether the insurance company had established as a matter of law that the claims in question had been improperly billed or were in excess of the amount permitted by the fee schedule. The holding of the court was that while the insurance company had established its entitlement to summary judgment for certain claims, it had failed to do so for others, and thus the judgment was reversed in part and vacated for those specific claims.

A provider's unopposed motion for summary judgment on the $814.02 unpaid balance of its no-fault claim was denied by the Civil Court because the affiant's signature was supposedly not properly notarized. The Appellate Term found nothing in the record showing the notary acted without jurisdiction or failed to perform required duties. It noted that the law does not require a document to be drafted, signed and notarized on the same date. The affidavit was in admissible form and sufficient to establish the prima facie case, and the defendant did not oppose. The court reversed, granted summary judgment, and remitted for calculation of interest and attorney's fees.

A provider appealed from the denial of its motion for summary judgment in an action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits against GEICO. The court recited the elements of a provider's prima facie case, including that the insurer failed to pay or deny timely or issued a conclusory or meritless denial. It found that the plaintiff's supporting affidavit did not show that the insurer's denial of claim forms were untimely or without merit as a matter of law. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish prima facie entitlement, and the order denying summary judgment was affirmed.

The main issues in the case involved a no-fault provider's entitlement to recover assigned first-party benefits, and whether the defendant had timely denied the claims based on a lack of medical necessity. The court considered whether the plaintiff had submitted proof of the submission to the defendant of a claim form, proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and proof that the defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period. The court also addressed whether the defendant had timely denied the plaintiff's claim for a specific amount, and if the plaintiff had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The holding was that the order denying the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon plaintiff's claim for $879.73 was reversed, and plaintiff was granted summary judgment on that claim. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees as to that claim.

The main issue in this case was an appeal from an order of the Civil Court that denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands and to produce an individual for an examination before trial. The court found that subsequent to the entry of the order, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint, rendering the appeal academic. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The relevant facts considered by the court were the actions of the lower court and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint, which led to the decision to dismiss the appeal as academic.