Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

19752/07

Defendant:

Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina

GEICO Insurance Co.

170 Froehlich Farm Blvd

Woodbury NY 11797

(516) 496-5822

Plaintiff:

Joseph Sporacio, P.C., Attorney for Plaintiff

2555 Richmond Avenue

Staten Island, NY 10314

(718) 966-0055

Katherine A. Levine, J.

The primary issue presented at trial was whether plaintiff Healthcare Associates in Medicine (“plaintiff” or “Health Care”) violated the revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (“Endorsement”or “PIP”) contained in the revised No-Fault Regulations – 11 NYCRR 65 – 1.1 – by failing to submit its proof of claim for services to defendant Geico Insurance (“defendant” or “Geico”) within 45 days from the date services were rendered. Since the two aforementioned cases presented the same issue, they were consolidated for trial. [*2]

Defendant moved for a directed verdict after plaintiff presented the testimony of Ms. Sparta, its collection account representative. Defendant contended that Sparta failed to establish that either of the assignor’s bills were sent within 45 days since she admitted on cross that she did not know whether or when the bills were actually sent out. She did not generate the bill and did not see the representative responsible for billing GEICO either generate the bills or mail them or give them to the postal clerk. Rather, it is her responsibility to supervise the assigned representatives, including “Mary Ann” who was responsible for GEICO billing. Mary Ann was supposed to take the information from the patient and generate a bill after the patient was seen and send out the bill was supposed to generate a visit for the day, attach it to the bill and send it out. She “hopes and assumes” that Maryann took the bill and put it into the mail room.

Due to the computer program utilized by plaintiff, she cannot print out a hard copy of the bill for the first date of service of a particular assignor since each time a new bill is generated the computer overrides the original bill that was created. Therefore the dates on the claim forms submitted by plaintiff (plaintiff’s “1” and “3”) are not the dates for the first bills that were generated for the assignors but rather the dates for the last bills that were generated. There is no proof of mailing for the bills containing the original dates of service and nothing on the bills that would show that they were mailed. However, the computer also prints out a claims history report ( plaintiff’s “2” and “4”) which chronologically lists from the bottom upwards the dates that the bills were generated. Sparta claims that based upon the claims history forms, the bill for the first date of service on Varallo- April 7, 2006 – was generated on April 12, 2006 and that the girls should have mailed the bill out that day. With respect to assignor Galanti, the bill for the first date of service on May 16, 2006 was generated was May 17, 2006.

Due to the alleged deficiency in Sparta’s testimony as well as deficiencies in the documentary evidence, GEICO contends that it is not necessary for it to present its own witness to establish its receipt of the bills or its generation of timely denials. Despite this contention, Geico asserts in its brief that it received the bill for the date of service of April 7, 2006 (Varallo) on June 26, 2006 and timely denied the bill on June June 29, 2006. Geico also asserts that it received the bill for the date of service of May 16, 2006 (Galanti) on July 7, 2006 and timely denied it on July 20, 2006. However, these are merely assertions; Geico did not place its denials in evidence.

Curiously, Geico does not dispute that plaintiff’s witness “adequately testified that she had personal knowledge of the mailing procedures sufficient to raise a presumption that the bill(s) were mailed to Defendant.” Therefore defendant does not dispute that but for the 45 day issue, plaintiff would have proven its prima facie case. Rather defendant challenges plaintiff’s ability, on its prima facie case, to submit both testimony and evidentiary documentation to establish that the bills were mailed within the mandatory statutory time period of 45 days. In essence Geico contends that it would be redundant and a waste of time for it to have to place its claims examiner on the stand to establish that the bill was mailed and received beyond the 45 [*3]days since plaintiff would not be able, based upon Sparta’s testimony in plaintiff’s case, to rebut its testimony and documentary evidence.

Pursuant to the revised insurance regulation, all automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002, are required to include a revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (“Endorsement”) which reduces the time within which claims are to be submitted from 180 days (11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12 [e] (“old regulations)) to 45 days (11 N.Y.C.R.R. § 65-1.1 [b] (“new regulations.”)). See, Mtr. Of Medical Society of the State of NY v. Serio, 298 AD2d 255 (1st Dept. 2002); Eagle Chiropractic P.C., v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129A, 859 NYS2d 902 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130(A), 791 NYS2d 873 (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004). Where one proof of claim is submitted for several medical treatments, the 45 day period commences the day after the first treatment is rendered. SZ Medical P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 52, 55 (App. Term., 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006), citing Informal Opinion, New York State Insurance Department, June 30, 2003.

Insurance Law § 3425 (a) (8) sets forth that the policy period for newly issued and renewed automobile insurance policies is one year. See also Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 NY2d 475 (2001). The latest date of expiration for an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would be April 2003. S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra . When an automobile policy is issued after that date, the defendant insurer need not prove that the policy at issued contained such an endorsement, “(s)ince an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would have expired no later than in April 2003 (see Insurance Law § 3425 [a][8]), the automobile insurance policy applicable to the claims at issue in the instant case was required to contain the current Endorsement which sets forth the 45-day time limit for the submission of claims (Insurance Department Regulations [11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65-1.1 [b]”. Eagle Chiropractic, supra . See also, Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C. v. Regina Alsis, 2009 NY Slip Op. 51966U, 2009 NY Misc. LEXIS 2471 (Civil Ct., Bronx Co. 2009).

Although a health care provider is required to submit its proof of claim within 45 days after the services were rendered, an insurer is precluded from asserting the defense of a provider’s untimely submission of claim if it does not issue a timely denial of claim. Rockman v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., supra , citing Mid Atlantic Medical P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 12 Misc 3d 147(A), 824 NYS2d 769 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2006). Pursuant to both the Insurance

Law and the regulations promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim. Presbyterian Hosp. v. Md. Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 (1997), citing Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]). See, Bayside Rehab & Physical Therapy P.C. v. GEICO, 24 Misc 3d 542 (Civil Ct., Richmond CO. 2009). [*4]

Thus, in Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 354 ( 2d Dept. 2004), the court found that despite the fact that the medical service provider had submitted a proof of claim that was incomplete and untimely, the plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that their claims were neither denied nor paid within the requisite time period NYCRR 651.1(d) ( new regulation). St. Clare’s Hosp. v. Allcity Ins. Co., 201 AD2d 718 (2d Dept. 1994).However, since the defendant offered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether as to whether the plaintiff’s claim was denied as untimely, summary judgment should not have been granted to the plaintiff. See also, Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. MVAIC, 2007 NY Slip Op 52143U, 17 Misc 3d 1125A (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2007) (parties stipulated at outset of trial that plaintiff’s bills were submitted beyond 45 days after services were rendered, the defendant submitted a timely denial, and the plaintiff’s prima facie case was established).

GEICO submits that it need not present a witness to establish that it timely denied the bills because plaintiff failed, in its prima facie case, to establish that it mailed the bills within the statutory 45 day period and failed to present any testimony as whether it had a reasonable justification for the delay in mailing the bills. However, since GEICO concedes that plaintiff made out its prima facie case of generating and then mailing a bill, GEICO cannot then attack the validity of the very bills it concedes were properly mailed and generated by arguing that they do not contain proof that they were mailed within 45 days. The fact that a plaintiff’s bill may ultimately be deemed to be untimely does not create an obligation upon the plaintiff, in the first instance, to prove timeliness as part of its prima facie. Rather, precedent requires that an insurance company establish the untimeliness of the bills by putting in its timely denials which contain the dates that the bills were received. GEICO may be able to prevail if the documents it puts into evidence substantiate its assertions, in its brief, that it received both claims beyond the 45 day manage.

As such, defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for the dismissal of the case is denied. The parties shall contact the court within 20 days of receipt of this decision to set a trial date if they cannot resolve these two cases based upon the afore stated decision. A trial shall be held to give GEICO an opportunity to present its defense.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: January 6, 2010______________________________

Hon. Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by _______on___________ [*5]

A P P E A R A N C E S

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

97213/2007

Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt

155 Kings Highway, 3rd Floor

Brooklyn NY 11223

Tel.: (718)336-8076

Defendant’s Counsel

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP

445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 220

Melville, NY 11747

Tel.: (631) 390-0011

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, both the plaintiff and defendant move for summary judgment.

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proving the submission of statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2004]). The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] ).

In opposition to the motion and in support of its cross-motion, defendant demonstrated that after receiving the claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, it timely requested additional verification of the claims by sending a letter to plaintiff’s assignor on August 21, 2006, directing her to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) on a September 6, 2006. When she failed to appear for the examination, defendant sent her a second letter on September 7th, rescheduling the examination for September 20, 2006. Defendant’s submissions sufficiently demonstrated that the scheduling letters were mailed to plaintiff’s assignor on the above dates and [*2]that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the examinations.

It is well settled that an insurer is required to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days after the claimant provides proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]) and that its failure to do so will preclude it from raising most defenses to the claim (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY, supra, 90 NY2d at 282). An insurer may extend the 30 day period in which it has to pay or deny a claim by making a request for additional verification of the claim “within 15 business days of receipt [of one] of the prescribed verification forms” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b]; see also Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 27 AD3d 96 [2nd Dept 2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2nd Dept 2002]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 699, 700 [2nd Dept 2001]). If the verification is not provided 30 calendar days after the original request, “[a]t a minimum … the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call, properly documented in the file, or by mail” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]). An insurer does not have to pay or deny a claim until it has received verification of all of the relevant information requested (see e.g. Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Gov’t Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 673, 674 [2d Dept 2006]).

At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel maintained, inter alia, that since defendant did not strictly comply with the time limitations set forth in 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], it lost the toll of the 30-day rule to pay or deny the claim. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that the second IME letter was mailed only 17 days after the first. She maintained that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], defendant was required to wait a full 30 days after the initial mailing of the IME request before mailing out the second request. The Court finds plaintiff’s argument to be unavailing.

In Infinity Health Products, Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 [2d Dept ]), the Court recently held that it “[i]t would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, which ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant, slightly prematurely, sent its second verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent” (2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2 [citations omitted]) The Court reasoned that “it would be incongruous to conclude that the insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer’s requests…. and [that] [s]uch a result is not contemplated by the no-fault law’ or its regulations, which should be interpreted to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Id.).

The Court held that “inasmuch as the plaintiff did not respond to either of the verification requests, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not commence to run . . . and that . . . plaintiff’s action [was therefore] premature” (Id.). The [*3]Court further held that “plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted . . .without prejudice to commencement of a new action” (Id. [citations omitted]).

In this Court’s view, the holding in Infinity Health Products, Ltd. requires dismissal of the within action, without prejudice to its recommencement. Here, as in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., it would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, whose assignor ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant did not strictly adhere to the time frames set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] for mailing out second requests for additional verification of a claim . It would be incongruous to conclude that 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] mandates a result that would penalize the defendant for its diligent attempts to obtain additional verification of the claims and reward plaintiff whose assignor ignored the requests.

This court recognizes that this case is not on all fours with Infinity Health Products, Ltd.. In Infinity Health Products, Ltd., the defendant sent its second written verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent. Here, the second written verification request was sent out 13 days before the expiration of the 30 day period referred to in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however, this distinction does not warrant a contrary result.

When plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME on September 6, 2009, the re-scheduling letter was mailed to her on the following day. Unlike in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., once plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME, there is no legitimate reason why defendant should have waited a full 30 days from the mailing of the first letter to mail out the re-scheduling letter. Indeed, had defendant waited a full 30 days, it would have had acted in contravention of one of the primary policies underlying the “no-fault law”; which is “to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Infinity Health Products, Ltd., supra, 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2). Further, the Court notes that when plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the re-scheduled IME, 30 days had elapsed from the time that the first scheduling letter had been sent to her.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary Judgment is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to the commencement of a new action.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

[*4]Dated: January 6, 2010__________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

13134/07

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joseph Sparacio

2555 Richmond Avenue

Staten Island, New York 10314

(718) 966-0055

Counsel for Defendant:

Diamond, Rutman, Costello & Si

291 Broadway, Suite 1100

New York, New York 10007

(212) 267-4731

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case calls upon the court to again examine whether an expert witness called by a defendant insurance company may rely upon medical records, prepared by an entity other than the plaintiff medical service provider, to formulate an opinion as to the medical necessity of services provided by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Popular Imaging, P.C., (“plaintiff” or “Popular Imaging”), a medical service provider, seeks to recover r payments from defendant State Farm Insurance Co. (“defendant” or “State Farm”) for an MRI of the lumbar spine that it provided to the assignor Belquis Perez (“assignor” or “Perez”) as a result of the injuries that she sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant claims that the services were medically unnecessary. At the trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and to defendant’s timely denial of the claim. Therefore, the only issue before the court was whether the medical services provided was medically necessary. [*2]

Dr .James B. Sarno (“Dr. Sarno”), who is a board certified neurosurgeon, prepared a peer review report and testified that the MRI performed on the assignor’s lumbar spine was medically unnecessary. At the outset of Dr. Sarno’s testimony, plaintiff refused to stipulate into evidence the peer review report prepared by and medical records reviewed by Dr. Sarno, contending that this court should not consider Dr. Sarno’s opinion since it was based upon medical records and reports that were not in evidence and for which no evidence was submitted as to their reliability. pursuant to the leading case of Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 ( 2d Dpt 2002). The court reserved decision on this objection to Dr. Sarno’s testimony.

Dr. Sarno’s testimony referred, for the most part, to the records and reports of Dr. Noel Fleisher, a board certified neurologist, who was the assignor’s treating physician and who referred the assignor to the plaintiff for an MRI. On August 23, 2002, Dr. Fleisher issued a report as to the results of his neurological consultation with the assignor some two weeks after the accident. He set forth as his impressions post concussion syndrome, traumatic cervical radiculopathy, traumatic lumbar radiculopathy, and myofacial pain syndrome. He indicated that he would consider a MRI scan and/or EMG studies. He listed the prognosis as guarded. Dr. Sarno also listed on his peer review the March 7, 2003 letter from plaintiff to Dr. Fleisher explaining the results of the MRI of the lumbar spine.The peer review report also lists a number of other reports, letters or diagnosis from other entities that were independent of both Dr. Fleisher and plaintiff (“independent reports’) such as New York Neurology, P.C.; Central Park Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, etc.

It is well settled that when records are prepared by a plaintiff medical service provider’s own principal, who treated the claimant and conducted the tests in questions, a plaintiff cannot viably argue that a defendant’s expert opinion “was not derived from a professional reliable source or to otherwise challenge the reliability of its own medical records and reports which were used as proof of its claim”. Andrew Carothers, M.D. (Martinez) v. GEICO, 2008 NY Slip Op 50456U, 18 Misc 3d 1147A (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008);. See, Cross Continental Medical v. Allstate, 13 Misc 3d 10 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2006).

In Velen Medical Supply Inc. V. Travelers Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 781 (Civil Ct., Queens Co. 2008), the court extended this ruling to permit testimony by a defendant’s expert based upon medical records and reports prepared by entities other than the plaintiff. The court first found that the records at issue fell within the fourth category of admissible opinion evidence set forth in the leading case of Wagman v. Bradshaw. 292 AD2d 84, 86-87 ( 2d Dept. 2002) : “material not in evidence provided the out- of-court material is accompanied by evidence establishing its reliability.” The court then cited to Hambsch v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726 (1884) where the Court of Appeals held that an expert “may rely on out-of-court material if it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross examination.'”.

As to the Wagman issue, the Velen court found that in the context of no-fault, a plaintiff could not challenge the reliability of the assignors’ medical records and reports, even if those [*3]reports were not prepared by the plaintiff, if they were provided by plaintiff in response to defendant’s verification requests and were affirmatively relied upon by plaintiff as proof of claim. 20 Misc 3d at 784.See, Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply Inc., v. American MFRS. Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 50302[U] , 14 Misc 3d 139A (App. Term,1st Dept. 2007). Subsequently, Judge Sweeney extended this reasoning to the situation where the plaintiff’s assignor, rather than the plaintiff, provided the medical records to the defendant in response to a verification request. See, Primary Psychiatric Health, P.C., v. State Farm Mutual, 2007 NY Slip Op 50583U, 15 Misc 3d 1111A (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2007). In fact, the Appellate Term has recently ruled that a defendant’s expert may not be precluded from testifying even though his opinion was based upon medical records prepared by physicians other than the plaintiff relating to treatment provided to the assignor. Bronx Expert Radiology v. NY Central Mutual, 2009 NY Slip Op 514575U, 2009 NY Misc. LEXIS 1796 ( App. Term, 1st Dept. 2009).

Here, the assignor’s physician, Dr. Fleisher , recommended that a MRI be performed; this is confirmed by Dr. Fleisher’s records. Dr. Sarno testified that in formulating an opinion he relied primarily upon Dr. Fleisher’s August 23, 2002 report of his neurological consultation with the assignor^[FN1] and Dr. Fleisher’s EMG/NCV testing of September 13, 2002. Since plaintiff performed the MRI based upon the records and referral from the assignor’s treating physician, who apparently deemed the test to be medically necessary, and since plaintiff sent the results and explanation of the MRI back to Fleisher, plaintiff cannot now be heard to challenge the reliability and authenticity of Dr. Fleisher’s records.

As to the requirement that the material be generally accepted in the profession as reliable and there be evidence establishing its reliability, Dr. Sarno testified that these are the types of reports that a doctor would review to offer an opinion on the necessity of a lumbar MRI. Dr. Sarno uses other doctors’ reports in formulating a medical opinion about his own patients and that it is a generally accepted standard in the medical profession to form an opinion based in part on other doctors reports. He testified that he takes these reports at face value. Dr. Sarno’s testimony is consistent with set precedent that a physician’s office records are admissible as evidence at trial to the extent they are germane to diagnosis and treatment. Hazel Bruce Bishop v. Jafar, 302 AD2d 345 (2d Dept. 2003). Furthermore, an expert is entitled to rely upon facts set forth in medical records so long as he did not base his opinions upon the conclusions contained in the records. Meagan Murray v. Weisenfeld 37 AD3d 432, 434 (2d Dept. 2007); Bruce Bishop v. Jafar, supra. [*4]

Dr. Sarno then testified that it is generally accepted medical procedure to send a patient for a lumbar MRI where there is actual evidence of radiculopathy, irregularities in the neurological exam or failure to respond to conservative treatment. None of these factors were present in the documents reviewed by Dr. Sarno so as to justify the medical necessity of the lumbar MRI. On cross examination. Dr. Sarno reiterated that there were no actual neurological findings in the lower extremities to support a finding of radiculopathy He also testified that no EMG/NCV studies were even performed in the lumbar area of the body. Plaintiff presented no evidence or testimony in this matter, choosing instead to rely upon the aforementioned argument concerning the ability of Dr. Sarno to render an opinion and its cross examination of Dr. Sarno. Plaintiff has failed to refute the expert testimony and opinion and failed to produce evidence to rebut the lack of medical necessity for the lumbar MRI. As such, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant

.

Dated: November 5, 2009

KATHERINE A. LEVINE

JUDGE, CIVIL COURT

Footnotes

Footnote 1:(Since Dr. Sarno relied for the most part upon Dr. Fleisher’s records, it is not necessary for this court to render an opinion about the admissibility of the panoply of reports from other doctors that were reviewed by Dr. Sarno and which accompanied his peer review report. However, it appears that these reports were provided to Sarno by DND – a third party- who apparently received all the records from plaintiff as a result of defendant’s verification request (defendant’s 2). As such, in accordance with the aforementioned precedent, Dr. Sarno could also properly rely upon these records in formulating an opinion.

Civ Ct, Richmond County

Index No.: 21379/07

Counsel for Defendant:

Gina M. DiGaudio, Esq.

GULLO & ASSOCIATES, LLP

520 86TH Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-238-9555

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joaquin J. Lopez, Esq.

BAKER, SANDERS, BARSHAY, GROSSMAN, FASS, MUHLSTOCK & NEUWIRTH

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

Plaintiff Administrative Assets (“plaintiff” or “Assets”), a medical service provider, commenced this action, pursuant to the No-Fault Law, to recover payments from defendant Zurich American Transit Insurance Company (“defendant” or “Zurich”) for services plaintiff rendered to its assignor Frank Saccente (“assignor” or “Saccente”) as a result of the injuries that he sustained in an automobile accident.

Defendant moves to dismiss the action on the ground that the assignor is entitled to Workers Compensation because the assignor was an employee who was injured on the job while working, thus granting the Workers Compensation Board (“Board”) primary jurisdiction over issues of coverage. In support of its motion, defendant presented the affidavit of its no fault specialist – Mr. Herbert – who, in a conclusory fashion, described how defendant ” obtained documents from the Workers’ Compensation Board which revealed that the assignor was injured in the course of employment.” Specifically, attached to his affidavit is an “Employer’s Report of Work-Related

Accident”(“Employer’s Report”) filled out by a third party – the assignor’s employer.

Plaintiff asserts that a no-fault insurer asserting a defense that workers compensation is primary must establish, as a threshold matter, that the claimant was employed at the time of the underlying motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to submit any admissible evidence on this point that the claims specialist’s affidavit is insufficient to lay a foundation to admit a hearsay document (the Employer’s Report) into evidence. Specifically, under Dan Medical P.C. v. NY Central Mutual Fire, Ins.,14 Misc 3d 44 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006), the claims specialist failed to demonstrate that he possessed sufficient personal knowledge of defendant’s business offices practices and procedures so as to lay the foundation for the [*2]admission of the assignor’s Employer’s Report.

The Court finds that the Employer’s Report is inadmissable, since defendant has failed to lay a foundation establishing that this Report, which was prepared by a third party – the assignor’s employer – is a business record of defendant. As such, the information contained in the report is inadmissable hearsay.

In the leading case of People v. Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 (1986), the Court addressed several issues relating to the hearsay exception to business records contained in CPLR 4518(a). This provision provides that “[t]he term business includes a business, profession, occupation and calling of every kind.” The business records exception “grew out of considerations of necessity and trustworthiness – the necessity for alternatives to permit large and small business to prove debts by their records of account, and the unusual degree of trustworthiness and reliability of such records owing to the fact that they were kept regularly, systematically, routinely and contemporaneously.” Id at 579 citing 5 Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 1421-22, 1546. “The essence of the business records exception …is that records systematically made for the conduct of a business …are inherently highly trustworthy because they are routine reflections of day-to-day operations and because the entrant’s obligation is to have them truthful and accurate for purposes of the conduct of the enterprise.” 68 NY2d at 579.

The foundation requirements of CPLR 4518, which incorporate these common law precepts,

mandate that the proponent establish that the writing was made in the regular course of business, i.e. that the writing reflects a routine, regularly conducted business activity; that it was the regular course of business to make the writing; and that the writing was made at or about the time of the transaction; and that the writing was made at or about the time of the transaction.” Id at 580. See, Lenox Hill Radiology P.C. (Sardar) v. American Transit Ins CO., 2008 NY Slip Op. 50330U, 18 Misc 3d 1136A (Civil Ct., NY Co. 2008). In Aram Barbikian v. Nikki Midtown LLC, 60 AD3d 470, 471-72 (1st Dept. 2009), for example, the court held that the bookkeeper’s affidavit did not lay the foundation

necessary for the admissibility of purported employment records and a computer printout submitted to show where the employees were on the date of the attack. The bookkeeper did not state that she was in charge of employment or employment records or otherwise have firsthand knowledge of the plaintiff.

Similarly, here, the affidavit of John Herbert does not specify defendant’s regular business procedures for obtaining information regarding an assignor’s employment status vis a vis workers compensation, and defendant clearly does not have personal knowledge much less any knowledge as to how the third party – the assignor’s employer – filled out the Employer’s [*3]Report or submitted it to the Workers Compensation Board. The affidavit is silent as to whether either it was either defendant’s or the third party employer’s business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted.

As such, the third party report may not be considered in this summary judgment motion and the defendant therefore cannot show, in its papers that there is potential merit’ to its claim that [the assignor] was employed at the time of the accident so as to trigger a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Lenox Hill Radiology, supra citing A.B. Medical Serv. PLLC v. American Transit Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 127A, 801 NYS2d 776 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2005 ). In light of the inadmissibility of this record, this court finds that defendant has not submitted sufficient evidence that the assignor was employed at the time of the accident, that workers compensation is primary, and that the issue of coverage must first be presented to the Workers Compensation Board. See, Arvatz v.v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 268 (1st Dept. 1991); Lenox Hill Radiology, supra .

As defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, this case shall proceed to trial.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:October 1, 2009

Staten Island, NYHON. KATHERINE A. LEVINE

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by _______ on ____________

A P P E A R A N C E S

Counsel for Defendant:

Gina M. DiGaudio, Esq.

GULLO & ASSOCIATES, LLP

520 86TH Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-238-9555

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joaquin J. Lopez, Esq.

BAKER, SANDERS, BARSHAY, GROSSMAN, FASS, MUHLSTOCK & NEUWIRTH

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, September 22, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Melissa Betancourt, Brooklyn, for plaintiff. Law Office of Teresa Spina, Woodbury, for defendant.

{**25 Misc 3d at 1099} OPINION OF THE COURT

Lisa S. Ottley, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to section 5106 of the Insurance Law and Regulations of the New York State Insurance Department (11 NYCRR) § 65-1.1 et seq., for medical services rendered. Plaintiff is seeking judgment in the amount of $796.46, which represents two bills in the amounts of $16.46 and $780.

Plaintiff moves for an order granting summary judgment as a matter of law, on the grounds that assignor, Kiara Francisco, assigned her “no fault” benefits to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the insurance policies sold by defendant, and the timely submission of invoices and/or bills to defendant in accordance with the New York State Insurance Law. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion and cross-moves for an order granting summary judgment on the grounds that the claims for no-fault benefits were timely denied based upon lack of medical necessity and fees charged in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

After careful review of the moving papers, supporting documentation and opposition thereto, the court finds as follows: [*2]

Pursuant to both the Insurance Law and the regulations promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance, within 30 days after a claimant submits proof of the facts and the amount of loss sustained, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for insurance coverage of medical expenses arising from a motor vehicle accident. (See 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 200 [1997]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 16 [2d Dept 1999]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583 [2d Dept 2002].)

Based upon a review of the supplemental documents submitted by the plaintiff, the court finds that the plaintiff has{**25 Misc 3d at 1100} established its prima facie case as to the mailing of its claims for no-fault benefits. The plaintiff has annexed an affidavit of its billing manager, as well as proof of mailing. In addition, the court finds that the defendant has established its prima facie case as to the mailing of its timely denials. The affidavit of defendant’s claims representative, Leonard Delgiudice, sets forth the insurer’s standard office practice and procedure, which establishes a presumption of mailing. (See Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001].)

Plaintiff argues that defendant improperly denied one bill in the amount of $780, and partially paid the other bill, and that defendant improperly applied the fee schedule. Plaintiff further states that defendant’s moving papers were insufficient, because defendant failed to attach an affidavit explaining how the fee schedule is applied. Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s papers are defective because of the incorrect caption of the case and index number, as well as the fact that the affirmation of the attorney is signed by someone other than the affiant.

The court has thoroughly reviewed and considered the arguments of the parties’ attorneys. First, the court finds it necessary to address the plaintiff’s arguments concerning the defendant’s attorney’s affirmation. Although the attorney affirmation has the correct provider’s name, it has the incorrect index number, as well as the assignor name. In addition, the affirmation starts out with the name of Anthony N. Kobets, as the attorney affirming under the penalties of perjury, but the signature name is that of Kristie Hack, Esq.

As a result of the improper caption, index number and attorney signature the plaintiff argues the papers are defective. Therefore, the question is whether or not the defects as argued by plaintiff would warrant summary judgment being granted in favor of plaintiff on these grounds. This court answers in the negative. In all likelihood, the papers were used in a similar case, inasmuch as the improper caption has the same provider, and is a boilerplate attorney affirmation, and unfortunately was not reviewed with the sharpest of eyes, in order to pick up the typographical errors. The defects in an attorney affirmation should not warrant summary judgment being granted in favor of plaintiff. An affirmation of an attorney has no probative value. The affirmation itself, which is purported to be that of one person, but signed by another is worthless and a nullity. (See A.B. Med. Servs. v CNA Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 138[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50265[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004].){**25 Misc 3d at 1101} However, the defendant’s [*3]cross motion cannot and does not stand alone on an attorney affirmation. The supporting document to the cross motion must come from a person with actual knowledge of the facts to the case. The supporting affidavit to defendant’s cross motion which is of probative value is that of Leonard Delgiudice, an employee of GEICO. The court has, without giving consideration to the attorney affirmation, made its determination based upon the supporting affidavit of Mr. Delgiudice, and the annexed documents to the cross motion such as the peer review and denials. Thus, the court finds plaintiff’s arguments that the papers are defective to be without merit, in light of the fact that the motions can be decided without the attorney affirmation which is of no probative value.

It is well established that a medical provider must limit its charges to those permitted by approved fee schedules. (See Goldberg v Corcoran, 153 AD2d 113 [2d Dept 1989]; Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43 [2d Dept 2004]; King’s Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51681[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003].) The fees for services and procedures are governed by the workers’ compensation fee schedule insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 68.1) and durable medical goods fees are governed by the New York Medicaid fee schedule (11 NYCRR part 68). An insurer who raises this defense will prevail if it demonstrates that it was correct in its reading of the fee schedules unless the plaintiff shows that “an unusual procedure or unique circumstance justifies the necessity” for a charge above the scheduled fee. (11 NYCRR 68.4.)

An insurer can only preserve a fee schedule defense by first complying with the rule requiring the insurer to pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim. (See Jamil M. Abraham M.D. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50388[U] [2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004].)

The claim for $183 was partially paid by the insurer, in the amount of $167.04 leaving a balance of $16.46. As stated above, the claim was denied on two grounds: lack of medical necessity and fee schedule. The denial shows the reduction of the provider’s charge of $38.50 for the positioning cushion/pillow being reduced to $22.04, thereby leaving the balance of $16.46. Inasmuch as the defendant has failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law that amounts charged in said claims were in excess of the amounts permitted by the fee{**25 Misc 3d at 1102} schedule, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for $16.46.

Defendant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law the amounts charged for said claims were in excess of the amounts permitted by the fee schedule. The affidavit of Leonard Delgiudice fails to address how the fees were applied, and how the charged amount by the provider was in excess of the fee schedule. (Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009].)

Next, this court will address the remaining bill in the amount of $780, which was denied in full. The provider’s claim for no-fault benefits in the amount of $780 was denied [*4]based upon lack of medical necessity. The explanation annexed to the denial, “attachment 1” of exhibit “C” to defendant’s cross motion, indicates that the denial is based upon an independent medical examination. There was a service for $630 and one for $150. The “EOB” (explanation of benefits) code is “SSS” and explained in the denial as “supplies have been found not to be medically necessary.”

Lack of medical necessity is a defense to an action for recovery of no-fault benefits, and may be asserted by the insurer provided that there has been a timely denial of the claim. (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 200 [1997].)

As stated above, the court finds that the defendant has established the timely mailing of its denial of plaintiff’s claims for no-fault benefits.

In opposition to defendant’s cross motion and in support of its motion for summary judgment plaintiff argues that defendant’s peer review is inadmissible because of the doctor’s stamped signature. Plaintiff contends that the peer review does not comply with CPLR 2106, due to defendant’s failure to submit proof that the doctor himself stamped his signature.

The Appellate Term has consistently held that a peer review report which bears an electronic stamp of the peer review signature is not in admissible form pursuant to CPLR 2106. (Radiology Today, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d Dept 2008]; Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 128[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52502[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006].) However, in the case before{**25 Misc 3d at 1103} this court, the defendant has annexed as part of exhibit “D,” which is the peer review of Dr. Andrew R. Miller, an affirmation of Dr. Miller which states in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof the following:

“4. I alone have the ability to apply the signature and no other individual, either under my employ or otherwise has the authority or ability to apply the signature.

“5. When my electronic signature is applied I am affirming, under the penalties of perjury, the truthfulness, accuracy and correctness of my report and will swear under oath, in a court of law or in arbitration, if asked to do so.”

It is this court’s opinion that the affirmation of Dr. Andrew Miller, which indicates that the peer review report has an electronic stamped facsimile of his signature that is in fact his and was applied by him and not by anyone else, is sufficient to establish that the signature has been acknowledged by Dr. Miller as his own. As such, the court deems the peer review to be in admissible form.

Therefore, inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of fact to negate the peer review report of Dr. Andrew Miller, summary judgment should be granted in favor of the [*5]defendant. (See Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51761[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists, 2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50535[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008].)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied in part and granted in part. The clerk of the court is hereby directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $16.46, plus statutory cost, interest and attorneys fees.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for $780 is hereby denied. Defendant’s cross motion is denied in part and granted in part, and the cause of action for no-fault benefits in the amount of $780 is dismissed.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, July 27, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola (Melissa A. Pirillo of counsel), for plaintiff. Law Office of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury (John Dupuy of counsel), for defendant.

{**25 Misc 3d at 546} OPINION OF THE COURT

William A. Viscovich, J. [*2]

Due to the similarity of the factual background and legal issues to be determined in these matters, the two cases herein were consolidated for trial purposes before this court. After a pretrial conference, the parties stipulated on the record as follows as to both cases:

1. Plaintiff has established its prima facie case as a matter of law;

2. Defendant has issued timely verification requests to the plaintiff’s attorney;

3. The plaintiff’s attorney responded to those verification requests with identical “compliance letters” in each case.

Also, while not stipulated to on the record, the following facts are undisputed. In the first action (Isabel Graulan), plaintiff submitted one bill totaling $676.98 for supplies rendered to the claimant for date of service August 15, 2007. Along with the bill was a letter from plaintiff’s counsel requesting that any and all verification requests be directed to their office. Defendant timely received this bill on or about August 15, 2007. Thereafter, defendant timely requested from plaintiff’s attorney additional verification on August 24, 2007, with a follow-up request on September 24, 2007, both seeking a narrative report of the patient’s initial consultation from the prescribing/referring physician (specifically, naming one Dr. Goldman).{**25 Misc 3d at 547}

Likewise, in the second action (Cesare Iori), plaintiff timely submitted a bill totaling $372.98 for supplies rendered to the claimant for date of services July 17, 2007 (again with a letter from plaintiff’s attorney requesting that any and all verification requests be directed to their office), which defendant timely received on or about July 25, 2007. Thereafter, defendant timely requested additional verification on August 14, 2007, with a follow-up request made on September 18, 2007 seeking a manufacturer’s invoice documenting the cost of the medical equipment or supplies and proof of payment for the medical equipment or supplies.

In both cases, the plaintiff’s attorney responded to the verification requests after the follow-up letter had been sent. These self-titled “compliance letters” read, in part, as follows:

“Please be advised that the bills, medical reports, assignment of benefits and proof of claim were previously provided with the initial submission of the claim for the above-referenced patient. Be further advised that this response constitutes full compliance with any purported requests and constitutes the provider’s submission of all relevant documents in the provider’s possession. Any further requests should be directed to the party that possesses such other information. Therefore any further requests to this provider are deemed unnecessary and in violation of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.2 (c)” (emphasis added).

A review of the transcript of the proceeding reveals some confusion as to the exact nature of the issues to be decided. Nonetheless, based upon the transcript and the briefs submitted by the parties, the court has determined that the following issues control its decision in these matters:

1. Were defendant’s verification requests proper;

2. If so, were plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s verification requests sufficient; and [*3]

3. If not, was defendant obligated to respond further to plaintiff in some form to communicate its position that the response was insufficient or could it remain silent?

Discussion of Law

Defendant’s Verification Requests Were Proper

An insurance carrier is permitted to request additional information from a claimant through a proper and timely verification{**25 Misc 3d at 548} request. (See generally 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b].) While the materials an insurer may request are not unlimited (see generally 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]), the Insurance Law and regulations clearly outline an insurer’s right to request and receive information necessary to the processing of a provider’s claim for no-fault benefits. Furthermore, “[t]he insurer is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim.” (See 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c].) As such, the issue for this court to determine is whether the verification requests in each of these cases were in some way inappropriate or otherwise beyond the scope of a proper verification request.

In the Graulan matter, the insurer requested “a narrative report of the patient’s initial consultation from the prescribing/referring physician (Dr. Goldman).” In the Iori matter, the insurer requested a “manufacturers invoice documenting the cost of the medical equipment or supplies” and “proof of payment for the medical equipment or supplies.” In both cases, the court finds that said requests were reasonable and in accordance with the statutory and regulatory framework of New York State’s no-fault insurance statutes and regulations.

As such, the court must now address the issue of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s verification requests.

In the Graulan Matter, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Verification Request was Sufficient

In the Graulan matter, the defendant’s reasonable verification request was for “a narrative report of the patient’s initial consultation from the prescribing/referring physician (Dr. Goldman).” The plaintiff’s response, while pro forma, did clearly state that “further requests should be directed to the party that possesses such other information.” In this matter, that party seems to be one Dr. Goldman, who was likely known to the insurer, as evidenced by the doctor’s name being placed on the verification request.

Pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.2 (e) and (f), an insurer is under a duty to “[c]learly inform the applicant” of its position and must “[r]espond promptly . . . to all communications from . . . attorneys,” including responses to verification requests. Indeed, an insurer is required to respond to a response to a verification request, regardless of whether it feels the response is sufficient. (See All Health Med. Care v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 907 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004, Agate, J.]; Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., Civ Ct, NY County, 2008,{**25 Misc 3d at 549} Moulton, J., index No. 076/08; Media Neurology, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1101[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51902[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008, Ash, J.].) [*4]

At the very least, given that the response to the verification request was somewhat on point, the defendant should have responded to the verification response as being insufficient. More importantly, however, defendant should have forwarded a verification request to Dr. Goldman, or if it could not locate Dr. Goldman, the defendant should have requested that plaintiff provide contact information for him. Either way, had no response been forthcoming from either Dr. Goldman or plaintiff, this action would be premature and the court would be inclined to dismiss it as such due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide a legitimate verification response.

Given the defendant’s failure to take action on plaintiff’s marginally acceptable verification response, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $676.98 plus statutory interest, attorneys fees and costs and disbursements.

In the Iori Matter, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Verification Request was Insufficient and as Such Defendant was Not Obligated to Respond Further to Plaintiff in Some Form to Communicate Its Position the Response was Insufficient

Unlike the previous matter, the court finds that plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s request for verification was insufficient. As previously decided herein, the defendant’s verification request for a “manufacturers invoice documenting the cost of the medical equipment or supplies” and “proof of payment for the medical equipment or supplies” was eminently reasonable.

While plaintiff’s response in this matter was identical to the response in the previous matter, it was, at best, vague, disingenuous and totally lacking in any guidance that the defendant could find useful in obtaining the requested information. It contained neither the information requested nor alternative information sufficient to allow the defendant to expedite either payment or denial of the claim. Nor was there any indication, as in Graulan, that defendant might know whom to contact other than the plaintiff.

Here it should be pointed out that the requested items, unlike in the previous case, were likely in the control of, or at least accessible to the plaintiff. This court finds it extremely difficult to believe that plaintiff, with the assistance of counsel, who was basically acting as its billing agent (see Lenox Hill Radiology &{**25 Misc 3d at 550} MIA P.C. v Global Liberty Ins., 20 Misc 3d 434 [Civ Ct, NY County 2008, Bluth, J.], could not obtain either a manufacturer’s invoice or a proof of payment for the items provided. In that case, involving the same plaintiff’s firm, it seems that the response to the verification request therein was identical to the responses contained herein.

Courts have endorsed not only the legal obligation to respond to verification requests, but have distinctly addressed the contractual and professional obligation to likewise respond. In the case of Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (7 Misc 3d 927 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2005]), the court stated that “when a claimant submits bills to an insurer for payment, the claimant, who stands in the shoes of his assignor, must deal in good faith and cooperate with the insurer if it wants to get paid” (id. at 930). The court further outlined a good faith duty with [*5]respect to responses to verification requests, noting that “even if the claimant believes it cannot or need not comply with the insurer’s request, the claimant still has a duty to communicate with the insurer regarding the request” (id. at 931).

While in that case, unlike here, there was no response whatsoever to defendant’s verification request, the plaintiff’s response herein hardly constitutes good faith and is made more unacceptable by the language contained therein that it constituted “full compliance with . . . purported [verification] requests” and that “any further requests to this provider are deemed unnecessary and in violation of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.2 (c).”

As Judge Bluth stated in Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA PC v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (NYLJ, Aug. 27, 2008, at 27, cols 1, 2 [index No. 39CVN 2008]),

“[J]ust because plaintiff’s attorney labeled the letters ‘Verification Compliance’ does not make it so. The label is meaningless; in no way can any literate person possibly construe that letter as complying with the verification request. No verification was supplied. Those letters, which completely ignored defendant’s bona fide requests . . . specifically informed defendant that plaintiff would not be providing whatever information may have been requested. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ self-serving and threatening . . . letters did not call for a response—in fact, by specifically putting the defendant on notice that nothing else would be forthcoming{**25 Misc 3d at 551} and that any further request would be ‘unnecessary and in violation of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.2(c)’—plaintiff’s attorneys instructed defendant not to respond. Moreover, 11 NYCRR § 65-3.2 (f) only requires the insurer to respond when a response is indicated and here, no response was indicated” (emphasis added).

While the court is reluctant to impose this limitation on plaintiffs, given that the history and purpose of New York State’s enactment of the No-Fault Law is to ensure the prompt and expeditious payment of claims (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 284 [1997]), there is a somewhat competing policy concern that an insurer “is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim” (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]). Allowing the document submitted by plaintiff to qualify in this matter as a legitimate verification response could encourage no-fault plaintiffs to simply ignore verification requests based upon their own interpretation of what constitutes a valid response. As in this particular matter, they would then be able to provide nonresponsive “verifications” on their own terms, thus enabling them to move matters prematurely into litigation without a full prior vetting of the matter as anticipated by the no-fault statutes.

As such, the complaint in the matter of Custom Orthotics, LTD., as assignee of Cesare Iori v Government Empls. Ins. Co. is dismissed as premature.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

08R000954

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment raises anew whether the recent Court of Appeals decision in Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. V. Travelers Indemnity Co., 10 NY3d 556 (2008) requires an insurer to deny a claim on the grounds that the assignor was involved in an accident while on the job and that workers compensation is hence primary within 30 days, or whether that defense is not subject to the preclusion rule.

Plaintiff Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C. A/A/O (“Lenox Radiology”

or “plaintiff”), a medical service provider, brought this action seeking reimbursement in the amount of $878.67 for medical services it provided to its assignor Zulfiqar Ahmad (“assignor or “Ahmad”) stemming from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 19, 2007. Plaintiff timely submitted its bill to defendant Global Liberty Insurance Co. (“defendant” or “Global”) which is a “licensed insurance carrier for vehicles for hire” (affidavit of Dwight Geddes -“Geddes affidavit” ). Global received the claim on November 2, 2007, and denied and mailed the claim on November 28, 2007 on the grounds of lack of medical necessity based upon a performed peer review report. ^[FN1] The denial did not list as a grounds lack of coverage based upon workers compensation being primary. [*2]

Defendant moved for summary of judgment on the grounds that there is no coverage since it “has reason to believe” that the assignor was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that therefore, workers compensation is primary and the assignor is not entitled to no -fault benefits. It further contends that the Workers Compensation Board (“Board”) is vested with the responsibility of resolving questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact and that the Board hence has”primary and exclusive jurisdiction” to resolve questions of coverage. Thus, a no -fault insurer is only obligated to pay no-fault benefits if the workers compensation carrier denies liability for benefits. From these propositions, defendant argues that “there is no coverage” from an insurance company for no – fault benefits until the Board makes a determination that there is no workers compensation coverage and that hence, defendant’s time in which to issue a denial does not even commence until the Board makes its determination.

Plaintiff cross moved for summary judgment on the ground that the defense that a “claimant is eligible for workers compensation” is not a coverage defense but rather a “statutory offset” which must be contained in a timely denial. Plaintiff contends that there are only four “coverage defenses” that are not subject to preclusion even if not raised in a timely denial and that the instant defense is not included in this group. Since defendant did not preserve this defense by issuing a timely denial, plaintiff contends it is entitled to partial summary judgment.

In response, defendant contends that if in fact the Board were to determine that the assignor was not working at the time of the accident but rather was using the vehicle for personal reasons, this would be in violation of his policy of insurance or “contract” with Global and would constitute a “material misrepresentation” by the insured so as to warrant a forfeiture of his rights under the policy. Defendant further contends that “misrepresentation by an insured and a material breach of the contract of insurance result in the vitiation of coverage.”

To grant summary judgment, “it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980). A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing form has been mailed and received, and that payment of no -fault benefits was overdue.” Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins.,, 5 AD3d 742, 743 (2d Dept. 2004); Second Medical v. Auto

One Ins., 20 Misc 3d 291, 293 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008).

The burden then shifts to the defendant in a no fault case to show a triable issue of fact. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). To defeat an award of summary judgment to plaintiff, defendant must provide proof, in evidentiary form, that it either paid or denied the claim within 30 days of receipt or that it asserts a non- precludable defense. Carle Place Chiropractic v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 51065U; 19 Misc 3d 1139A (Dist. Ct. Nass. Co. 2008). District supra at 8. See Central General Hospital v. Chubb Insurance Co, 90 NY2d 195 (1997); Presbyterian Hosp. City of NY v. Maryland Casualty Co., 90 NY2d 274 (1997). [*3]

In Fair Price Medical v. Travelers Ins., 10 NY3d 556 (2008), the Court of Appeals clarified when an insurance company would not be precluded from offering a defense to its refusal to pay no – fault benefits even though it denied the claims beyond the 30 day period. There, Travelers issued its denial nearly two years after receiving the claim, based upon the assignor’s statement that he had never received medical supplies from the plaintiff. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant was not precluded by the 30 day rule since it had asserted fraud as a defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s reversal of the lower court’s order denying plaintiff summary judgment on the grounds that :

in this case, unlike a staged accident case, there was an actual automobile accident, which

caused Nivelo to sustain actual injuries, for which he was treated by actual health care providers, who issued actual prescriptions for medical supplies to treat his injuries. Nivelo’s undisputably real accident had resulting injuries triggered with the coverage provided for in his insurance policy with the defendant” Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. V. Travelers Indem. Co. 42 AD3d 277, 284 (2d Dept. 2007) affg 9 Misc 3d 76 (App. Term 2d and 11th Jud. Dist 2005).

In sum, the Appellate Division concluded that while Travelers could contest the assignor’s claim as fraudulent, it must do so within the tight deadlines imposed by the no -fault system. 42 AD3d at 286.

The Court of Appeals affirmed . It first cited to its recent review of the legal framework behind the No – Fault Law in Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins., 9 NY3d 312, 317 (2007); namely that the no fault insurance system was designed to ensure “prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence,” to reduce the burden on the courts, and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists. ” Citing to its prior decision in Central General Hospital, supra, the Court cautioned that there was only one “narrow” exception to the preclusion rule for those situations where an insurance company raises the defense of lack of coverage. 9 NY3d at 318 . The Court explained that in such cases “an insurer who fails to issue a timely disclaimer is not prohibited from later raising the defense because the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the

first instance, and requiring payment of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed. Fair Price, 10 NY3d at at 563 citing Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 318. See, e.g. Tahir v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 657, 662 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2006) (“staged accident fraud” actually posed an issue of non coverage as opposed to fraud because under no -fault concepts, insurance coverage is limited to an “accident”).

Thus, the “key issue” in every case is whether the “facts fit within the narrow no-coverage exception to the preclusion rule” 10 NY3d at 564. A court, in determining whether a specific defense is precluded under the 30 day rule or falls within the exception entails a judgment as to whether the defense is more like a “normal exception ” from coverage such as a policy exclusion or a lack of coverage in the first instance, i.e. a defense “implicating a coverage matter.” 10 NY3d at 565. [*4]

In Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 (2d Dept. 2009), the Second Department found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact solely based on the hearsay statement of its investigator, as to whether the accident was covered by Workers Compensation benefits. The court then added that “defendant’s possible entitlement to offset any no-fault benefits it pays by any recovery pursuant to a workers compensation claim does not constitute a defense of lack of coverage, which is not subject to the requirement that there be a timely service of the disclaimer” Id at 1046 citing Fair Price supra.,

The Second Department decision in Westchester, supra, despite its brevity, controls the instant matter. Furthermore, as set forth above, the Second Department has previously enunciated its position on the preclusion rule in Fair Price, supra wherein it declared that as long as there was an actual automobile accident, which caused the assignor to sustain actual injuries for which he was treated by an actual health care provider, the case would not fall within the narrow exception to the preclusion rule. Defendant does not contend otherwise but merely argues that workers compensation is “primary” and that there is no coverage for no fault benefits until and unless a workers compensation board makes a determination that the assignor is not covered by workers compensation at which point the no – fault insurer is obligated to pay first party benefits.

Defendant cannot escape this rule by now claiming that there was “fraud ” or “misrepresentation” by as the assignor in obtaining the policy. Defendant fails to allege the type of fraud which will warrant the suspension of the preclusion. This distinction was aptly drawn in

Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs. P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 50639U, 19 Misc 3d 1111A, 862 N.Y.S.2d 813 (NY Sup. Ct. 2008) wherein the court stated that “(t)he defense of fraud based upon “staged accidents” or intentional collisions are considered defenses premised on lack of coverage, and have been found not subject to the rigorous 30-day rule because there was, in fact, no “accident.” See, Mtr. of Allstate Ins. Co v Massre, 14 AD3d 610 (2nd Dept. 2005); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490 (2nd Dept. 2003); Metro Medical Diagnostics, P.C. v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 (2nd Dept. 2002). On the other hand, cases involving fraudulent billing or excessive treatment are considered claims of “provider fraud” and can be precluded by the 30-day rule. Carnegie Hill, supra at 4 . See, Careplus Medical Supply Inc v State-Wide Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 29 (App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2005); MGM Psychiatry Care PC v Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 137(A), 824 N.Y.S.2d 763,(App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2006).

The Carnegie court noted that the ” key distinction is that in the first circumstance the insurance carrier demonstrated that an issue existed as to whether there was any coverage at all, whereas in the second the courts were presented with an exclusion under the policy, which does not mean that there was no contractual obligation in the first instance. In the latter, the 30-day rule still applies”. Id at 4 citing Fair Price Supply Corp., supra at 42 AD3d 277.

In fact, in Fair Price, supra, the Second Department specifically stated that the exception [*5]to the preclusion rule was carved out specifically where an insurer failed to timely pay or deny fraudulent claims that arise out of staged automobile accidents. 42 AD3d at 283. The rationale for such a holding was that “a deliberate collision that is caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is simply not an “accident” covered by the subject insurance policy.” Id. To that end, no matter how “egregious” the alleged fraud was in the case before it ( medical supply company’s claim was fraudulent as medical supplies were never delivered), it was not related to the existence of coverage in the first instance. Id. at 284.

Nor does the fraudulent misrepresentation raised by defendant herein fall into the category of fraudulent incorporation A defendant is not precluded from raising its defense that plaintiff may be fraudulently incorporated since it is ” possibly” owned by both a physician and non physician, the latter of which is prohibited by both the Business Incorporation Law, the No – fault regulations and the seminal case of State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. V. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005).^[FN2]

In Eastern Medical P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 775 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2008), the court rejected Allstate’s contention that Fair Price had reshaped the analysis of fraud based defenses so as to make a Mallela fraudulent incorporation defense untimely if not made within the 30 day denial period. See, Manhattan Medical Imaging, P,C, v, State Farm Auto Ins,., 2008 NY Slip Op. 51844 (U), 20 Misc 3d 1144 (A) (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2008). The court found that the Mallela defense was not predicated upon a policy exclusion or the extent of coverage provided by a contract of insurance but rather upon a statutory defense arising from a claimant’s failure to comply with applicable sections of the Business Corporation, Limited Liability and Education Laws. Id at 779-780. Hence, the challenged regulation in Mallela did not create a new category of exclusion but rather was “a condition precedent with which all claimants must comply in order to receive benefits.” Id at 780 citing 4 NY3d at 321 n.3. Therefore, Fair Price did not

alter, much less address prior precedent that a fraudulent incorporation defense “is a non- waivable defense .and is therefore not subject to the 30-day preclusion rule” ( Midwood Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto, 14 Misc 3d 131A, 2007 N.Y Slip Op 50052 U

( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007). Id at 781. Nor was such a defense waived by the failure to assert it in a denial of claim form. Multiquest v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 37, 39 ( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007).

Since the instant defendant’s claim of fraud does not fall into the category of fraud in pursuance of a staged accident or fraudulent incorporation, it does not fall within the exception to [*6]the preclusion. Having failed to raise the defense that claimant is eligible for workers compensation or that workers compensation is primary in a timely denial, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment. However, since defendant timely mailed its denial based on lack of medical necessity and annexes a sufficient peer review report in support of its denial, this matter will proceed to trial on the issue of medical necessity.

In sum, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted solely with respect to the defense of workers compensation.

DATED: July 6, 2009

KATHERINE A. LEVINE

JUDGE, CIVIL COURT

ASNbyon

Footnotes

Footnote 1:The court finds that the defendant established that it generated and then mailed out a timely denial based on lack of medical necessity on November 28, 2007 in accordance with its well established procedures and through the personal knowledge of the mail clerk at Global.

Footnote 2:This defense is typically referred to as the “Malella defense” or “fraudulent incorporation” defense.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

88511/08

Cheree A. Buggs, J.

Defendant Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York (“defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3212 and § 3211 [a] [7] on grounds that No-Fault Insurance does not cover a claim submitted by plaintiff Corona Comprehensive Medical Care (“plaintiff”). Plaintiff, the assignee of medical benefits of the operator of a for-hire vehicle, filed a $1,333.24 claim for no-fault insurance benefits for medical services provided to the vehicle operator for injuries arising from an automobile accident. Defendant’s contention is that the for-hire vehicle operator was working when the accident occurred on March 20, 2007, and therefore the plaintiff’s claim is payable through Workers’ Compensation Insurance from the New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund and not under the No Fault Insurance Law. Plaintiff opposes the defendant’s motion on several grounds, chief among them are that defendant’s claim is not a lack of coverage defense, and therefore, must be raised in a timely denial; that the defendant failed to show that a timely denial was mailed, or that such denial was mailed in duplicate; and lastly, that the existence of workers’ compensation coverage does not prevent a person from recovering no-fault benefits.

Background

It is undisputed that on March 20, 2007, the plaintiff’s assignor, Maria Cruz Martinezwasinvolved in a vehicular accident. Defendant alleges that the assignor was about to join the livery vehicle passenger pickup line on Broad Street off of Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan when the accident occurred. Plaintiff provided medical services to Ms. Martinez (the nature of which are not specified in any of the papers herein), and as assignee of Ms. Martinez, submitted a claim to the defendant for payment. Defendant insurance company alleges that although a timely denial was not required, a timely denial of claim form (“NF-10”) was issued on June 12, 2007.

[*2]DiscussionThe movant on a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, proffering sufficient evidence to eliminate all material issues of fact from the case (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med.Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

In support of its motion, defendant has offered the sworn affidavits of Mahmoud Ragab, its Vice President of Underwriting and of Dwight Geddes, its Fault Claims Manager. Mr. Geddes attested that the defendant is a licensed insurance carrier for three categories of vehicles for hire, e.g.,”black car,” luxury and car service vehicles, and is not licensed to insure private vehicles. According to both affidavits, the assignor was a member of Corporate Transportation Group, LTD, CTG/Optimum Car and Limo dispatch, which is a member of the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund as required by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission and Executive Law § 160-cc, et seq. The affidavits indicate that the plaintiff’s assignor’s license plate number was “T484693C,” and that the “T” and “C” on a New York license plate indicate a for-hire vehicle under the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. According to Mr. Ragab’s affidavit, black car operators must be affiliated with a dispatch or base, and the base must provide Workers’ Compensation Insurance if a driver is injured while working.

The New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund is a not-for-profit corporation, which was created by statute in order to ensure that black car operators who are injured while performing duties on behalf of central dispatch facilities receive workers’ compensation benefits. The central dispatch facilities are required to be members of the fund as a condition to obtaining or retaining their licenses (See NY Exec Law § 160-dd, et seq.). Pursuant to NY Executive Law § 160-cc [1], a ” [b]lack car operator’ means the registered owner of a for-hire vehicle, or a driver designated by such registered owner to operate the registered owner’s for-hire vehicle as the registered owner’s authorized designee, whose injury arose out of and in the course of providing covered services to a central dispatch facility that is a registered member of the New York black car operators’ injury compensation fund, inc.” According to Executive Law § 160-cc [4] ” covered services’ means, with respect to dispatches from or by a central dispatch facility located in the state, all dispatches from such central dispatch facility regardless of where the pick-up or discharge occurs, and, with respect to dispatches from or by a central dispatch facility located outside the state, all dispatches involving a pick-up in the state, regardless of where the discharge occurs.”

Defendant alleges that because the vehicle operator was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on duty, plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed under Workers’ Compensation Insurance from the New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund, and not under the no-fault law. Insurance Law §§5102 [b] and [b][2] state “first party benefits” are payments meant to “reimburse a person for basic economic loss on account of personal injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle less amounts recovered or recoverable on account of such injury under state or federal laws providing social security disability benefits, or workers’ compensation benefits…” Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 [b][2], workers’ compensation benefits “serve as an offset against first-party benefits payable under no-fault as compensation for basic economic loss” (see also Arvatz v Empire Mutual Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 268 [1991]). It is solely within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine whether claimed injuries occurred while in the course of one’s employment (see Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15 [1986]; O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 [1976]; O’Hurley-Pitts v Diocese of Rockville Centre, 57 AD3d 633 [2008]; [*3]Mattaldi v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 297 AD2d 234, 235 [2002]). Workers’ Compensation Law § 142 [7] states that “[w]here there has been a motor vehicle accident which caused personal injury and there is a dispute as to whether the injury occurred in the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Board shall … hold an expedited hearing … whether the accident occurred within the course of employment”. (See also Jing Huo Lac v American Transit Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 1146[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51177 [U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008].)

Further, the defendant alleges that even if the plaintiff’s claim was not timely denied, the absence of such timely denial would not bar the defense of lack of coverage based upon the Workers’ Compensation Law, and there would be no need for the defendant insurer to issue a timely denial (see Hosp. For Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins., 9 NY3d 312, 318 [2007]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Co., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]).

However, defendant’s contention that there was a valid lack of coverage defense to the plaintiff’s claim based upon workers’ compensation being the “primary” provider of benefits in the instant matter is misplaced, since the Second Department has held to the contrary. An argument of workers’ compensation being primary is not deemed to be a lack of coverage defense, but rather, a statutory offset subject to preclusion if not timely raised (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]).

In accordance with Insurance Law and regulations, an insurer has thirty days from the receipt

of a claim to either pay or deny the claim (see Insurance Law §5106 [a];11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). Inasmuch as defendant’s principal focus in the matter herein is the workers’ compensation issue, with a presumption that such issue constitutes a lack of coverage defense, it failed to submit admissible proof that the denial was actually mailed. Although defendant contends that it issued a timely denial, it has not proffered an affidavit from an employee with either actual knowledge of the mailing of the NF-10 denial of claim form or from an employee familiar with standard office practices and procedures, which would be sufficient to establish mailing (see New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v Allstate ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492 [2006], Ying Eastern Acupuncture v Global Liberty Ins., 20 Misc 3d 144 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51863 [U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. v Geico, 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Midisland Med., PLLC v Allstate Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 144 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51861 [U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008].) In his affidavit, defendant’s claims manager, Mr. Geddes attested to the receipt of mail/claims and processing of claims, but failed to attest to when the denial was mailed or what the standard office practices are regarding actual mailing. Therefore, defendant has not presented evidence that the workers’ compensation defense was preserved in a timely denial.

Although in the case at bar, the defendant has proffered some admissible evidence regarding the workers’ compensation defense, in the absence of proof of the defendant’s mailing of a timely denial based upon this defense, the Court cannot address whether there is “potential merit” of its claim that the plaintiff’s assignor, Ms. Martinez, was acting within the course of her employment at the time of the accident (see A. B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Transit Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 127 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50959 [U] [App Term 2d & 11th Jud Dist 2005]; Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v American Transit Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 1136 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50330 [U] [Civ Ct, New York County 2008]).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the defendant has failed to meet the required prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law to support its summary judgment [*4]motion. Consequently, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

____________________________________________________________________

Date““““““Hon. Chereé A. Buggs

Judge, Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

CV-030992-09/BX

For Plaintiff:

Michael C. Rosenberger of

Rapuzzi, Palumbo & Rosenberger, P.C.

For Defendant:

Diana Leahy of McDonnell & Adels, PLLC

Fernando Tapia, J.

In this no-fault action regarding the recurring issue of Examination Under Oath [“EUO”] letters and their presumption of mailing, this Court, after oral arguments and review of the motion papers, hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The above-captioned matter is demonstrative of other no-fault cases that have similar issues because the case at hand involves two topics that other motions seek to resolve: (1) violation of no-fault policy conditions and (2) unanswered verification requests. Those two main problems in turn spawn the ancillary issue regarding sufficient mailing procedures to make timely requests.

I. VIOLATION OF POLICY CONDITIONS

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law because Plaintiff violated no-fault policy conditions when it failed to appear for its scheduled EUO. Plaintiff, in turn, claims that Defendant failed to provide a copy of the subject insurance policy in [*2]its moving papers as well as failed to show that the EUO letters were actually sent.

Section I of 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1 states the following with respect to conditions for proof of claim:

“Upon request by the Company, the eligible injured person or that person’s assignee orrepresentative shall:

(a) execute a written proof of claim under oath;

(b) as may reasonably be required to submit to examinations under oath by any person named bythe Company and subscribe the same;

(c) provide authorization that will enable the Company to obtain medical records; and

(d) provide any other pertinent information that may assist the Company in determining the amountdue and payable.”

In the instant case, Plaintiff claims that Defendant unnecessarily cited the aforementioned policy condition because “[t]he central issue here is derived from the terms contained within the written policy agreement between the parties.” See Pl.’s Aff. in Opp. at p. 6. Plaintiff therefore asserts that in order for Defendant to prevail on its motion, the State Farm policy itself should be included as part of the record instead of depending on the no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1. To support its argument, Plaintiff discusses Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ganesh, 8 Misc 3d 922 (Sup Ct, Bronx County 2005), a case dealing with a petitioner’s arbitration stay of an uninsured motorist claim.

In Ganesh, the respondent, the injured individual, sought coverage from the offending party’s insurance carrier [State Farm-petitioner]. State Farm disclaimed the coverage on the basis that the collision was not a motor vehicle accident [“MVA”], but instead, was an intentionally staged event, thereby constituting fraud. State Farm therefore disclaimed coverage to the injured party because per its written policy, intentionally caused losses are not covered. Id. at 923.

The Bronx Supreme Court held that State Farm did not validly disclaim coverage because it did not give sufficient admissible evidence that it was a staged event [i.e. offering the written policy as admissible evidence]. According to Hon. Billings, “[b]ecause no party introduced State Farm’s policy in evidence, State Farm never proved, most fundamentally, that the policy . . . excluded intentionally caused losses or losses involving particular conduct or imposed any conditions on anyone relating to a claimed loss.” Id. As such, the petitioner’s arbitration stay was granted and the respondent was allowed to seek coverage under State Farm’s policy.

Here, Plaintiff’s reliance on Ganesh is flawed because unlike Ganesh, this instant action deals with the issue of an EUO “no-show” which is expressly outlined in the no-fault regulations, guiding principles which written policies are based upon. Ganesh, on the other hand, dealt with the issue of coverage with respect to a questionably fraudulent claim that requires dissection of the written policy itself. Ganesh is also distinguishable from the case at bar because the relief sought in Ganesh was for a stay of arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, as opposed to dismissal of the complaint based on non-compliance to policy conditions. As such, Ganesh fails to support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is required to provide the written policy as evidence. [*3]

Revisiting 11 NYCRR ｧ 65-1.1, that section is part of the revised no-fault regulations which took effect on April 5, 2002, and adopted the mandatory Personal Injury Protection [“PIP”] endorsement authorizing EUOs to be incorporated into insurance policies. In other words, compliance to a scheduled EUO is read into the written policy, and the insurer is not required to offer it as evidence to prove its claim.^[FN1] Likewise, in the case at hand, Defendant is not required to include its written policy as part of the record because its defense [of the EUO “no-show”] is found in the Endorsement. Thus, the mandatory Endorsement applies whether or not the written insurance policy actually contains it. Based on the moving papers, the date of accident was on August 27, 2008. According to NY Insurance Law ｧ 3425 (a)(8), “With respect to auto insurance, ‘required policy period’ means a period of one year from the date as of which a covered policy becomes effective after first issuance or voluntary renewal.” Furthermore, under SZ Medical P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 139(A) (App Term 1st Dept 2005), the date of the written policy’s issuance determines if the Endorsement is applicable, and not the date when the plaintiff submits a claim. Applying the above to the instant action, the subject insurance policy contract could be deemed to have been issued/renewed well after April 5, 2002, given that the date of accident occurred well over six years after the effective Endorsement date. It would therefore be duplicative to submit a copy of the policy because its legislative intent was to read the Endorsement into all policies [post-April 5, 2002].^[FN2] As such, Defendant does not need to submit the policy contract because the insurance contact in effect incorporates the Endorsement that authorizes EUOs under 11 NYCRR ｧ 65-1.1.

Plaintiff in the case at bar is therefore in violation of the policy condition requiring submission of EUOs for verification purposes in order to make a determination of first-party benefits because Plaintiff did not appear at the two scheduled EUOs as required by the Endorsement. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to submit valid proof of claim. The discussion now turns to the mailing mechanics involved in procuring such verifications.

II. VERIFICATION REQUESTS

A. Defendant’s contentions

According to 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (a), once the insurer receives the NF-2 application for benefits, the insurer “[s]hall forward to the parties . . . those prescribed verification forms it will [*4]require prior to payment of the initial claim.”^[FN3]

In this instant matter, the issue before the Court is whether the mailing of a letter via certified mail return receipt requested is entitled to the same presumption of receipt as regular first-class mail in the absence of the signed returned receipt. This Court determines that it is.

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not appear to the scheduled EUO despite timely notification to Plaintiff.^[FN4] To substantiate its argument, Defendant provided a sworn affidavit from a calendar clerk at the law office who explained that she was personally responsible for scheduling/handling EUOs. See Toyla Hogan Aff. at ¶ 1. Defendant also provided a sworn affidavit from a Claims Representative who attested her personal knowledge of State Farm’s mailing procedures of EUO letters via certified mail.^[FN5] See Alyson Johnson-Shaw Aff. at

¶¶ 3, 7.

Plaintiff counters that Defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of proving that the two EUO letters were actually mailed because Defendant’s supporting affidavits are not from individuals who personally mailed the EUO letters. See Pl.’s Aff. in Opp. at pp. 6-7. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s affidavits “[a]re actually just a string of several irrelevant and/or conclusory assertions.” Id. at p. 10. To support its contentions, Plaintiff relies on Clark v. Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 227 (1st Dept 1995).

In Clark, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that no triable issues of fact remained with respect to denying the plaintiff’s life insurance proceeds, especially after sending notices to the plaintiff to make payments so that his life insurance policy would remain active. The plaintiff denied receipt of those notices and further argued that the defendant’s deponent who testified on the regular office procedures of mailing the notices failed to show that he was aware of the computer-generated mailing log which listed the names of those receiving such notices. Id. at 228. The Court denied the motion, finding no presumption of receipt by the insured. Id. at 228-29.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Clark is misplaced because Defendant in the instant case submitted mail lists into evidence, whereas the deponent in Clark was not even aware of the computer-generated mail lists that were used for cross-referencing of the envelopes containing the notices. See Def.’s Reply Aff. at ¶ 6. In addition, the plaintiff in Clark expressly denied receipt of the notice. Here, Plaintiff, in its pleadings, did not explicitly or implicitly deny that it never received the EUO letters. Instead, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to show that the EUO letters were actually mailed. This Court therefore turns to the final issue of the presumption [*5]of mailing/receipt.

B. Plaintiff’s contentions

What constitutes “sufficient mailing” under no-fault regulations with respect to raising the presumption that an EUO letter was sent and received via certified mail, return receipt requested?

Here, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has the burden to show that the EUO requests were actually mailed. Based on Defendant’s sworn statements, the EUO letters were sent via certified mail. Thus, the question before the Court is whether the use of certified mail return receipt requested creates a more demanding presumption of mailing and receipt threshold above and beyond that of a letter sent via regular first-class USPS mail. The court finds that it does not.

1. Legal presumption: a basic discussion

This Court finds that Defendant has met its burden because the Court adheres to the longstanding precept that a basic fact [i.e. a mailed letter] raises the existence of a presumed fact [i.e. receipt of the letter] until the presumption is rebutted by admissible evidence.

Under Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a “[p]resumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption . . .” Sufficient evidence can therefore be considered by a fact finder in order to rebut a presumption.^[FN6] The least sufficient approach to a presumption is the “permissible inference” one in which a fact finder may conclude that a presumed fact exists. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed 2004. A permissible presumption, then, allows someone to infer that a presumed fact does exist from a basic one. Applying this to the mailed letter example, it can therefore be presumed that proper mailing occurred and it is more likely than not that the letter was received.^[FN7]

Does the presumption of receipt by regular mail apply to items of sent certified mail?

2. Rebutting the presumption

Defendant established prima facie proof that it mailed requests for additional verification of the claim by providing sworn affidavits from two State Farm office employees as well as an employee from the office of Defendant’s lawyers, all who have personal knowledge of mailroom procedures of EUO letters. See Def.’s Reply Aff. at ¶¶ 10-11.

More importantly, Defendant submitted its mail list which is not only additional prima facie proof of mailing, but is key to creating the presumption of receipt.^[FN8] The very function of [*6]“return receipt” is to provide proof of delivery, as guaranteed by the U.S. Postal System.^[FN9]

Here, Plaintiff relies on State of New York v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,

181 Misc 2d 595 (Sup Ct, Albany County 1999) to support its contention that Defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden to prove actual mailing of the EUO letters. In Int’l Fidelity —a non-no-fault case— the movant-plaintiff-NYS sought to prove that it never received the defendant’s cancellation notices about the terminated bonds which were sent via certified mail. The cross-movant-defendant-IFIC argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because NYS could not rebut the presumption of receipt of the cancellation notices. Id. at 599.

The Albany County Court held, inter alia, that routine office practices cannot create a presumption of receipt of letters sent via certified mail. Id. As the Court stated, “To create a presumption of receipt, IFIC has the burden of describing a standard office procedure used to ensure that items are properly mailed, or provide proof of the actual mailing.” Id.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Int’l Fidelity is misplaced because State Farm submitted both sworn affidavits from a claims representative with personal knowledge about mailroom procedures and proof of actual mailing to complement those affidavits, as previously mentioned in II.A. of this decision. See also Hernandez, supra. Furthermore, State Farm retained its mail lists, unlike the plaintiff [NYS] in Int’l Fidelity, who destroyed its mail logs. See Int’l Fidelity, 181 Misc 2d 595 at 598-99.

Also, in the case at hand, even if Ms. Johnson-Shaw, the State Farm Claims Representative, did not attest that she was personally responsible for preparing the EUO letters and mailing them via certified mail, return receipt, the fact that State Farm retained its mail lists serves as its safety net, thereby allowing it to create the presumption of receipt because those mail lists represent actual proof of mailing. Defendant should therefore not be punished for taking advantage of various mailing options which aim to ensure delivery from both the sender’s and recipient’s ends.

Mailing procedures’ technological developments, today, ensure that items are mailed and received so that presumptions can be eliminated. In fact, the USPS has the capacity to reproduce the image of the green return receipt card as a PDF attachment when certified mail is procured via the internet, or else when the sender did not receive the green card back and instead goes to the USPS to follow up on the status of the card. See FN. 9.

As footnoted earlier, the regulation is not specific about the means in which to send substantially equivalent written notices to the required parties; it merely instructs the insurer to “forward” them. See NYCRR § 65-3.5 (a). In fact, it may very well have been the legislative intent of the NY Insurance Department to be vague in order to avoid enforcement of a particular form of mailing in the event it becomes outdated, which would breed any problems regarding receipt. Until the no-fault regulations streamline its mailing requirement, it is presumed that a properly addressed letter that was mailed was duly delivered to the intended individual when using any method of mailing that the USPS offers, however basic or sophisticated that form of mailing is.

III. CONCLUSION [*7]

Satisfying no-fault policy conditions does not have to be compromised at the expense of challenging mailing procedures because proof of mailing of verification letters via regular USPS is enough to create a presumption of receipt. In addition, use of certified mail does not create a more demanding presumption of mailing and receipt beyond that of a letter that was properly mailed. The regulations make no distinction between sending a letter via regular mail or via certified mail.

WHEREFORE Defendant’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby GRANTED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: July 2, 2009____________________________________

Bronx, NYHon. Fernando Tapia, J.C.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: See Dana Woolfson LMT, a/a/o Tania Rega v. GEICO, 20 Misc 3d 948 (Civ Ct, NY County 2008) (holding that an insurer does not need to produce the insurance policy at trial to show that the contract contained the Endorsement).

Footnote 2: See Eagle Chiropractic, P.C. a/a/o Annette Monk et. al. v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129(A), 2008 WL 712036 (NY Sup App Term 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008) (stating that the Endorsement was required to be included in auto insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002).

Footnote 3: The regulation uses “forward” to describe the manner in which notification is to be effected. The only kink is determining what constitutes sufficient “notice” because the regulation does not specify the mailing procedure by which to notify the injured party.

Footnote 4: The EUO was requested with respect to the medical bill of $67.40 which was submitted after other bills were disclaimed. See Def.’s Aff. at ¶ 11. The sought-after EUO is for Theresa M. Hastava, D.C., the individual in question for being fraudulently involved with the healthcare practice. See Claudia Fulco Aff. at ¶ 19.

Footnote 5: Per 11 NYCRR ¶ 65-3.6 (b), timely verification requests are made either via phone calls or by mail. Defendant sent the first EUO letter via certified mail on or about October 29, 2008, with reference numbers 102808JK35 and 102808JK36. The second letter was sent on or about December 1, 2008, with reference numbers 120108JK24 and 120108JK25. See Def.’s Reply Aff. at ¶¶ 10-11.

Footnote 6: As per Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93-650.

Footnote 7: See Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829 (NY 1978) where the 1st department held that “It is settled law that a properly addressed and stamped envelope placed in a U.S. mailbox is presumed to have been received by the addressee.”

Footnote 8: See Hernandez v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 1215(A) (Sup Ct, Bronx County 2006), where movant-defendant-insurer sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing it timely disclaimed coverage via written notice and quoting Residential Holding Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins., 286 A.D2d 679 (NYAD 2d Dept 2001) (where proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice/procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed).

Footnote 9: See , accessed June 22, 2009.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 30, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Barry & Associates, L.L.C., Plainview, for defendant.[*2] Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff.

{**25 Misc 3d at 244} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

{**25 Misc 3d at 245}This case calls the court to reconcile the seeming anomaly between precedent and the insurance regulations as to what repercussions attach to an insurance carrier’s failure to adhere to the time limits for requesting follow-up verification in no-fault insurance cases. Since the regulations only address the repercussion that attaches to an insurer’s late submission of an additional verification request,^[FN1] and the tenets of statutory construction mandate that different parts of one statute are to be construed together, this court concludes that an insurance carrier should not be subject to greater penalties for submitting a late follow-up verification request than for submitting a late additional verification request.

Plaintiff Pine Hollow Medical, P.C., a medical service provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) to recover $699.34 for services it provided to its assignor Jonathan Aurelien, for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant Global Liberty Insurance moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s lawsuit was premature since plaintiff failed to comply with defendant’s verification requests. Plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s assertion that it never provided the requested information, but asserts that defendant’s follow-up verification request was late because it was made on the 11th day after 30 days had already transpired since defendant’s first request for verification, in violation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b).

Aurelien was allegedly injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment at Pine Hollow on March 23, 2006. Global sent a verification request to plaintiff’s attorney for a [*3]letter of medical necessity from the referring physician on April 6, 2006. Having received no response, defendant mailed a second verification request dated May 17, 2006, requesting the same letter of medical necessity. It appears that defendant was thus one day late in requesting the follow-up verification.

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim or it will be precluded from offering any defenses at trial. (Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889, 890 [2d Dept 2007]; see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997].) An insurer may toll the 30-day period by properly{**25 Misc 3d at 246} requesting additional verification^[FN2] within 15 days from the receipt of the no-fault insurance claim forms (NF-3 or claim form). (Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b].^[FN3]) If the “requested verification[ ] has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]).^[FN4] If the insurer does not receive the verification request after its follow-up request is sent, its time to pay or deny the claim is tolled pending submission of the requested information. “A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2d Dept 2004]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 554 [2d Dept 1999]). The insurer must pay or deny the claim within 30 days after it receives verification of all relevant information it requested pursuant to its original request for additional information (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1];^[FN5] Westchester County Med. Ctr. at 554).

In Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431, 432 [2d Dept 1996]) the court found that the follow-up requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (e) (2) (the predecessor to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]), must be “strictly[*4] construed” so that “when an insurance company has not received ‘verification’ within 30 days after requesting it, [the insurer] must, within the ensuing 10 days, ‘follow up’ with a second request, documenting the second request in the file and notifying the applicant or the applicant’s attorney.” In Presbyterian (supra) the insurer, after not receiving{**25 Misc 3d at 247} a response to its request for additional verification, failed to make any follow-up request and merely waited three months until it received the requested records after which it issued a denial. The Second Department found that the 30-day period within which the carrier should have paid or denied the claim had run ” ‘even before verification [was] obtained’, due to the carrier’s ‘lack of diligence in obtaining the verification’ ” (233 AD2d at 433, quoting Keith v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 118 AD2d 151, 154 [2d Dept 1986]).

There have been divergent opinions on whether the defendant insurance company must wait until 30 days have expired before sending out the follow-up verification request. In Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC (5 Misc 3d at 724-725), the court found that the regulations do not mandate that the insurer wait 30 days before sending a follow-up request since the time frame of 30 days was a limit to the amount of time an insurer may wait before sending a follow-up request. This expeditious handling of the verification follow up was consistent with the case law and the goals of the No-Fault Law.^[FN6] In Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (19 Misc 3d 1138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51063[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008]), this court adopted the reasoning of Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc. (supra) and held that defendant is allowed to send a follow-up verification request on the 30th day after the original request for verification.

Based upon the aforementioned precedent, it would appear that since defendant was one day outside the 10-day window period in which it had to mail its follow-up verification request, defendant could not take advantage of the tolling period and hence could not argue that the instant lawsuit was premature. However, unlike the arguments presented in the aforementioned cases, defendant here raises the somewhat novel argument that even if its follow-up verification request was untimely, “such untimeliness is not fatal but would merely reduce the number of days it has to either pay or deny the claim.” Specifically, defendant argues that since it was only one day late in mailing its{**25 Misc 3d at 248} follow-up verification request, the 30-day time period it had to pay or deny the claim would still begin to run after it received all of the requested verification but would be reduced by one day to 29 days. Defendant does not cite any authority for this proposition. [*5]

11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) states that “[f]or the purposes of counting the 30 calendar days after proof of claim, wherein the claim becomes overdue . . . , with the exception of section 65-3.6 of this subpart, any deviation from the rules set out in this section shall reduce the 30 calendar days allowed.” Section 65-3.6 (b), as set forth above, governs the follow-up requirements for verification requests if any verification has not been supplied to the insurer pursuant to the additional request.

There appears to be no higher court analysis of what the phrase “with the exception of section 65-3.6” means within the context of ascertaining what repercussions, if any, attach to an insurer’s late submission of a follow-up verification. However, in Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (262 AD2d 553 [1999]), the Second Department found that under the old regulations, a follow-up letter that was sent beyond the 10-day window period was timely and that the insured was entitled to the tolling of the 30 days as contained in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g). Since the plaintiff never responded to the follow-up verification letter, the 30-day period in which defendant had to pay or deny the claim never commenced and defendant’s denial of the claim was not untimely.

There, the defendant received the claim on April 28, 1997, and made a timely demand for additional verification on May 1. Having not received verification within 30 days, the defendant then made a “timely demand” for follow-up verification on June 13. (262 AD2d at 555.) The defendant thereupon denied the claim on June 19. In its brief before the Second Department, the defendant insurer argued that even assuming June 13^[FN7] was the date it mailed the follow-up request, its denial was still timely on the grounds that the regulations (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [10]) only addressed the repercussions if the initial{**25 Misc 3d at 249} (additional) verification request was not timely sent, and then did not require preclusion of the defense but only a reduction of the 30-day period in which the insurer had to pay or deny the claim, after receiving the verification material, by the amount of the delay. Without commenting on defendant’s reasoning, the Second Department found that defendant had submitted a timely follow-up request.

Subsequently, in Liberty Queens Med. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. (188 Misc 2d 835 [Nassau Dist Ct 2001]), the court dealt directly with the apparent inconsistency between the Appellate Division precedent that the verification requirements must be strictly complied with [*6]and the regulatory language which provided for an extension of time in which a defendant insurer had to pay or deny a claim based upon outstanding verification pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (2) and (g) (1) (under the new regulations—11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b] and 65-3.8 [j]). There, the defendant insurer made the additional verification request 11 days after receiving the claim and hence was one day late in making the request pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (2).

The plaintiff argued that because the request for additional verification was untimely, the defendant insurer waived its right to extend the 30-day period and therefore was required to make a determination on the claim within 30 days of the initial submission, citing Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431 [1996]). The Liberty court first distinguished the matter before it from Presbyterian where the court was not required by the facts before it to focus on the “specific issue presented here,” i.e., the tolling provision of section 65.15 (g) (10). (188 Misc 2d at 839.) Therefore, the “broad general language” utilized by the Presbyterian court should not be construed as determinative of how the court should rule upon a one-day delay in complying with the specific regulation before it. (Id.)

Addressing the insured’s “one-day deviation” from the requirement that it send its additional verification request within 10 days, the court found that the purpose of the No-Fault Law—”avoiding prejudice to insureds by providing for prompt payment or disclaimers of claims”—was sufficiently served by “truncating the presumptive 30-day period which the insurer itself would otherwise have to eventually review the proof submitted” as set forth in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (10). (Liberty at 840.) To impose the “draconian result” requested by plaintiff for a “one-day deviation” from the promulgated standards{**25 Misc 3d at 250} would deprive the insurer entirely of its right to obtain and review the needed proof and would “contravene rather than implement the statutory intent.” (Id.)

Based upon the two aforementioned precedents, it is clear that defendant should not be deprived entirely of the opportunity to review and obtain the needed proof by dint of its one-day tardiness in submitting its follow-up request. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) only addresses the repercussions of an insurer’s failure to request the additional verification within the set time lines, since it expressly excludes section 65-3.6, which discusses follow-up verification requests, and then sets forth that any deviation from the time frame shall reduce the 30 calendar days allowed in which to pay or deny the claim. As such, the regulations do not even contain a punitive provision for an insurer who does not make a follow-up verification request within the 10-day period.

“A statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 97; Frank v Meadowlakes Dev. Corp., 6 NY3d 687, 691 [2006]) and construed so as to harmonize [*7]with one another (Anglin v Anglin, 80 NY2d 553, 558 [1992]). In the interpretative context, a court “must read the entire law and accord respect to the interlocking and interrelated features of all its parts.” (Anglin at 558.) Furthermore, even apparently conflicting provisions of a statute must be reconciled in a manner most consistent with the overall legislative intent. (Statutes § 98; Schulman v Group Health Inc., 39 AD3d 223 [1st Dept 2007].) Finally, the common mandate of statutory construction is to assume that the Legislature “did not intend a patently absurd result.” (Covington v Walker, 307 AD2d 908, 909 [2d Dept 2003]; see Statutes § 145; In re Adamo, 619 F2d 216, 219 [2d Cir 1980].)

It would be patently absurd and contravene the meaning of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) to impose a more draconian punishment on an insurer who is one day late in requesting follow-up verification than on an insurer who is one day late in requesting additional verification. Since in the latter situation, the only repercussion to the insurer’s tardiness is the diminution in the time it has to issue a denial or pay the claim, it begs all credulity to impose the more drastic remedy of precluding the insurer from even issuing a denial because of its tardiness in requesting follow-up verification. If anything, the aforementioned regulation{**25 Misc 3d at 251} imposes no repercussion upon the insurer who is tardy in requesting follow up.

Since defendant has yet to receive any response to its verification requests, its 30-day period in which to deny or pay the claim has not yet commenced and the instant action is premature. In light of the above, it is not necessary for this court to determine whether the defendant’s time to deny or pay the claim, once it does receive the requested information, is diminished by one day.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is dismissed.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: As will be explained below, an additional verification request precedes a follow-up verification request under the no-fault insurance regulations.

Footnote 2: The additional verification request is to be distinguished from the initial verification forms (including the claim form or NF-3) which must be forwarded by the insurer to the parties required to complete them within 10 days of receipt of the completed application for no-fault benefits (NF-2).

Footnote 3: This opinion will also cite to the analogous provisions under the old no-fault regulations (old regulations) which were effective through December 31, 2002, since many of the operative cases were brought under the old regulations. The analogous provision to section 65-3.5 (b) under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (1), which provided that an insurer shall request additional verification within 10 days of receiving the prescribed verification forms.

Footnote 4: The analogous provision under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (e) (2).

Footnote 5: The analogous provision under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (1).

Footnote 6: However, in Sea Side Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (12 Misc 3d 1127 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2006]), Judge Sweeney found that the clear language of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) required the insurer to “follow up with the plaintiff for the verification at least once in the 10-day period specified therein” (id. at 1131). By sending the follow-up verification request only 28 days after the first verification request had been mailed, defendant failed to mail the follow-up request within the 10 days and “the toll occasioned by defendant’s initial requests for verification dissipated ab initio” (id.).

Footnote 7: (See reply brief for defendant-appellant in Westchester, available at 1999 WL 34593237 [briefs and other related documents].) In their briefs, the parties differed as to when the insurer sent the follow-up verification request; the plaintiff contended that it was sent on June 13 while the defendant insurer argued it was sent on June 3. The Appellate Division adopted June 13 as the date that the follow-up verification request was sent and this court will presume that the Appellate Division, after considering all the evidence, properly ascertained the operative date.