No-Fault Case Law

The court considered a motion to vacate a notice of trial and certificate of readiness in a first-party no-fault benefits case. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness should be granted. The court held that, for the same reasons stated in a related case (Fu-Qi Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Gomez, Osiris v Travelers Ins. Co.), the order is reversed and defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness is granted. Therefore, the order denying defendant's motion was reversed and the defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness was granted.

The court considered the fact that defendant Geico Insurance Company failed to appear for a conference, leading the court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to meet the burden of proof. The main issue decided in the case was whether the plaintiff met the burden of proof in the absence of the defendant at the conference. The court held that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof and dismissed the complaint.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, a provider, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of Joiliette Davis, and the defendant, an insurance company, moved to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the action was timely, as the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions was applicable, and the cause of action accrued 30 days after the insurer's receipt of the claim. The holding of the court was that the action was not timely, as the defendant established that it received all of the claim forms at issue no later than June 6, 2008, and the action was commenced over six years later. As a result, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, Neptune Medical Care, P.C., sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits, and the defendant, Praetorian Insurance Company, denied the claims on the grounds that the assignors of the plaintiff failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) and independent medical examinations (IMEs). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the Civil Court denied both motions, finding that the only triable issues were whether the EUO and IME scheduling letters had been timely and properly mailed. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant had timely and properly scheduled the EUOs and IMEs, and whether the plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear at duly scheduled appointments. The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the initial and follow-up letters scheduling the EUOs and IMEs had been timely mailed, and as a result, they failed to demonstrate that the appointments had been properly scheduled. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the order was affirmed, with costs.

The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff, Mag Medical, P.C., as the assignee of Nadezda Emelianova, was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, Kemper Insurance Company. The defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, claiming that they had timely mailed the denial of claim forms and that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. In support of their motion, the defendant submitted an affirmed peer review report, but the plaintiff did not submit any medical evidence in opposition. The court ultimately reversed the order of the Civil Court, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff had failed to rebut the defendant's prima facie showing of lack of medical necessity.

The court considered the fact that the insurance company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The main issue decided was whether the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure of the plaintiff to appear for the EUOs. The holding of the court was that the insurance company was indeed entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court found that the insurance company had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. Therefore, the only remaining issues for trial were the plaintiff's prima facie case and an issue of fact regarding a discrepancy in the EUO request letters.

The court considered whether a provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court found that the defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The only remaining issues for trial were plaintiff's prima facie case and "an issue of fact regarding the discrepancy between the person stated to be the contact for defense counsel in the EUO request letters and the person signing the affirmation regarding plaintiff's failure to appear." The holding of the case was that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

The court considered the fact that the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff, Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied the motion, finding that the defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The holding of the case was that, for the reasons stated in a similar case, the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Storm Bowles, seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court found in favor of the defendant, holding that they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The court also found that the only remaining issues for trial were plaintiff's prima facie case and an issue of fact regarding the discrepancy between the person stated to be the contact for defense counsel in the EUO request letters and the person signing the affidavit regarding plaintiff's failure to appear. The decision was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) in a first-party no-fault benefits claim. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The holding of the court was that the defendant was indeed entitled to summary judgment because they had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The court also found that a discrepancy between the contact listed in the EUO request letter and the attorney signing the affirmation of nonappearance did not raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.