No-Fault Case Law

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) as demanded by the defendant, State Farm Insurance. The main issue decided in this case was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied because the plaintiff objected to the EUO demands and the defendant failed to establish that the demands were reasonable. The holding of the case is that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with the court concluding that the plaintiff's objection to the EUO demands and the defendant's failure to establish the reasonableness of the demands were not sufficient to deny the motion. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to provide a valid defense to the motion for summary judgment.

The court was presented with the issue of whether the defendant's motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint was valid. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion should have been denied because the plaintiff objected to the defendant's examinations under oath (EUOs) demands and the defendant failed to establish that the demands were reasonable. However, the court held that the defendant was not required to provide a reason for its demand for an EUO in response to an objection from the plaintiff, as it was not specified in the regulation. Since the plaintiff's sole argument was based on this ground and the court found no basis to disturb the order, it affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgement.

The court considered the facts that the plaintiff, Actual Chiropractic, P.C., was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Insurance and that State Farm had requested the plaintiff to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) but the plaintiff failed to do so. State Farm issued a timely denial of the claims on the ground that the plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs. The main issue decided was whether State Farm was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The court held that State Farm had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it twice duly demanded an EUO from the plaintiff, that the plaintiff failed to appear, and that State Farm issued a timely denial of the claims. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the trial court and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issues in this case were whether the action by the provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits should be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, and whether there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that, therefore, workers' compensation benefits might be available. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to hold the action in abeyance. The court determined that the issue of eligibility for workers' compensation benefits must be resolved in the first instance by the Workers' Compensation Board before the court considers whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover first-party no-fault benefits. Therefore, the order was affirmed.

The relevant facts of the case involve a dispute between Global Liberty Insurance Company and Medco Tech, Inc. regarding a claim for no-fault insurance benefits for medical equipment provided to an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident. Global Liberty Insurance Company relied on a peer review report that concluded the individual's condition was degenerative and not post-traumatic, and therefore the surgery undergone was not medically necessary in relation to the accident. The main issue decided by the court was whether the need for the medical equipment was causally related to the accident. The holding of the court was that the arbitral award must be vacated and a de novo hearing held because, based on the record before them, it would be irrational to conclude that the need for the medical equipment was causally related to the accident. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment against Global Liberty Insurance Company and granted their motion to vacate the award, while denying Medco Tech, Inc.'s motion to confirm the award.

The court considered the facts of the case, including the claimant failing to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IME) and the denial of the claim based on those missed appointments. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had established a prima facie case as to the mailing of the denial forms and setting the matter down for a hearing on the issue of IME no show. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss were denied, as the defendant failed to establish that it was entitled to summary judgment, and the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had adequately pled causes of action pursuant to New York's no-fault regulations, and the court was not bound by an arbitration award against a different plaintiff in a separate matter.

The main facts of this case involve a medical rehabilitation center, Queens-Roosevelt Medical Rehabilitation P.C., seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Response Insurance Company. The insurance company filed a motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action, but the Civil Court denied the motion. The issue decided by the Appellate Term was whether the complaint should be struck and the action dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126. The holding of the court was that the order of the Civil Court was reversed, and the insurance company's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action was granted. This decision was made based on the reasoning and holding of a related case, Queens-Roosevelt Med. Rehabilitation, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Rodriguez v Response Ins. Co.

The court considered the denial of defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126 in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the denial of the defendant's motion was proper. The court held that the denial was not proper and reversed the order, granting the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126. The decision was based on the reasons stated in another case, Queens-Roosevelt Med. Rehabilitation, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Rodriguez v Response Ins. Co., decided herewith. The decision was concurred by P.J. Pesce, Weston, and Aliotta, JJ.

The main issue in this case was whether the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126 in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The relevant facts considered by the court were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The holding of the case was that the order denying defendant's motion was reversed, and defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126 was granted. The decision was made by the Appellate Term, Second Department, and the case was decided on March 8, 2019.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Queens-Roosevelt Medical Rehabilitation, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Response Insurance Company. The main issue decided by the court was whether the lower court erred in denying the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126. The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court denying the defendant's motion was reversed, and the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126 was granted. This decision was made for the reasons stated in another related case, Queens-Roosevelt Med. Rehabilitation, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Rodriguez v Response Ins. Co. The judges presiding over the case all concurred with this decision.