Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County

009158 CVN 08

Jacqueline S. Linder, Esq. (for defendant)

McDonnell & Adels, PLLC

401 Franklin Ave 2nd Fl

Garden City NY 11530

(516) 328-3500

Melissa A. Pirillo, Esq. (for plaintiff)

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth

150 Herricks Rd

Mineola NY 11501

(516) 741-4799

Anil C. Singh, J.

Hon. Anil C. Singh, J.:

Plaintiff Cambridge Medical, P.C. (“Cambridge Medical”) seeks reimbursement of first party no-fault benefits from defendant insurer. Defendant joined issue and served upon plaintiff its discovery demands, including a deposition notice. Plaintiff failed to comply with the demands. Defendant then moved to compel the testimony of plaintiff’s alleged owner, Eileen S. Debbi, M.D., and to require plaintiff to answer the interrogatories and provide documentation regarding the ownership/operation of the plaintiff. Cambridge Medical opposes the motion and applies for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103.

Defendant contends that Dr. Debbi is not the owner of Cambridge Medical. It believes that the real owner is one Mark Levitan, who is a non-physician and the owner of Nissa Management, Inc. Movant supports its application with an examination under oath taken of Dr. [*2]Debbi on March 8, 2007, in an unrelated proceeding. Dr. Debbi was questioned about Cambridge Medical. Adirondack contends that Dr. Debbi refused to respond to most of the questions at the EUO regarding management agreements and lease agreements, although she provided just enough testimony to indicate that she had little control over the daily operations of Cambridge Medical; had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s finances; and that Cambridge Medical was to a large extent controlled by Mark Levitan of Nissa Management, Inc.

Plaintiff opposes, contending that defendant has failed to show good cause for the deposition. It maintains that defendant’s allegation that Cambridge Medical is fraudulently incorporated lacks any support and is based on speculation, conjecture and surmise. Plaintiff maintains that the defendant simply used Dr. Debbi’s EUO testimony and chose portions of the testimony to distort and make it appear that there were issues with plaintiff’s corporation. Accordingly, the deposition is being sought to harass and to delay trial.

Discussion

Plaintiff chose to commence an action in the Civil Court and is bound by Article 31 of the CPLR, which grants as of right discovery in all civil plenary proceedings. Specifically, CPLR 3101(a) provides that there shall be “full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action….” The terms “material and necessary” are to be

interpreted liberally to require disclosure upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403 (1968).

Once an action is commenced, “any party may take the testimony of any person by deposition upon oral or written questions” [CPLR 3106(a)]. Parties may ask broad questions to ascertain the truth or to bring out relevant evidence that may assist in the prosecution or defense of the action [Seaman v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, Inc., 8 Misc 3d 628 (2005)]. Notice on a corporate party may not specify the individual to be examined, as initially the corporation may decide who it will produce [Rufus v. New York State Teachers Association, 42 AD2d 1040 (4th Dept. 1973)]. Employees who have knowledge are subject to being deposed [Ferraro v. New York Telephone Co., 94 AD2d 784 (2nd Dept. 1983); CPLR 3101(a)(1)].

The fact that the action was brought under the no-fault law is irrelevant to the demand for a deposition. The no-fault regulations govern, inter alia, the payment of claims and defenses to reimbursement. The “good cause” standard cited by plaintiff concerns a carrier’s right to delay payment of claims in order to conduct investigations [11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-3.39(c)]. It does not limit a party’s right to discovery sought in good faith pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR.

Defendant has a good-faith basis to question Dr. Debbi. The EUO of Dr. Debbi was conducted in 2007. She appeared to know little about the medical operation of Cambridge Medical and the medical personnel who worked at the office. It may well be that plaintiff is correct that there was no management agreement with Nissa Management, Inc., and that Mark Levitan was simply an employee of plaintiff. However, defendant is entitled to question Dr. Debbi under oath to ascertain the ownership status of Cambridge Medical.

Accordingly, the motion by defendant to compel the production of Dr. Debbi for examination before trial and to respond in a complete and meaningful way to defendant’s [*3]discovery demands is granted. Plaintiff shall: 1) provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories and provide documentation to defendant regarding the ownership/operation of the plaintiff within twenty (20) days of the date of this order; and 2) produce Dr. Debbi for deposition within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s application for a protective order is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Date:June 29, 2009_________________________

New York, New York

Anil C. Singh

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

039163/07

Genine D. Edwards, J.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover first-party no-fault benefits from defendant in the amount of $6,040.24, for medical services allegedly provided to its assignor, Flor A. Barrietos-Mercado. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the underlying insurance policy was retroactively cancelled and deemed void ab initio. Plaintiff has no written opposition to the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff allegedly rendered medical services to Barrietos-Mercado for injuries resulting from an automobile accident on May 2, 2001. Barrietos-Mercado assigned her no-fault benefits concerning such services to plaintiff. In turn, plaintiff submitted a bill in the amount of $6040.24 to defendant but the bill was not paid. Consequently, plaintiff commenced this action.

On or about February 25, 1999, defendant issued an insurance policy to Barrietos-Mercado. The insurance application listed Barrietos-Mercado’s residential and registration addresses as

“1402 79th Street, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047.” See Exhibit C-2. It also included the following statement:

Applicant’s Certification: I declare and certify:

1) Certify that the zip code on this application is the zip code of my residence . . . .

4) I have personally read and received a copy of this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief all statements contained in this application are true.

5) I understand that if I obtained this insurance through fraud or misrepresentation, my policy will be voided. I understand that the Assigned Company will not pay claims if the policy is voided.

Id.

After the accident, defendant conducted an investigation which revealed that “32-38 83rd Street, 1st Floor, East Elmhurst, New York 11370” was Barrietos-Mercado’s actual address. Due to the misrepresentation in the insurance application, defendant, on June 7, 2007, returned Barrietos-Mercado’s premium check and retroactively cancelled the insurance policy.

[*2]THE LAW

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. St. Claire v. Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 33 AD3d 611, 821 NYS2d 471 (2d Dept. 2006). See also Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 (1986). The motion shall be supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts. See CPLR 3212(b). Once the moving party satisfies these standards, the burden shifts to the adverse party to demonstrate the existence of evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial. See Katona v. Low, 226 AD2d 433, 641 NYS2d 62 (2d Dept. 1996); De Santis v. Romeo, 177 AD2d 616, 576 NYS2d 323 (2d Dept. 1991).

Retroactive cancellation of an automobile insurance policy is permitted under New Jersey law but prohibited under New York law. Compare Palisades Safety & Ins. Ass’n v. Bastien, 175 N.J. 144, 814 A.2d 619 (N.J. 2003) (policy void ab initio because insured misrepresented his marital status), and Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co. v. LaCroix, 194 N.J. 515, 946 A.2d 1027 (N.J. 2008) (“When a named insured has engaged in conduct that has resulted in the voiding of an automobile insurance policy, courts have employed the rescission remedy to deny that insured the right to claim PIP benefits under the void policy.”) with Eagle Ins. Co. v. Singletary, 279 AD2d 56, 717N.Y.S.2d 351 (2nd Dept. 2000) (“New York law does not allow retroactive cancellation.”), and A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 8, 820 NYS2d 378 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006) (automobile insurance policy may not be retroactively cancelled on ground that insured obtained policy through fraud or misrepresentation). This conflict of law, although arising in the context of a motor vehicle accident, must be resolved by the conflict of law rules relevant to contracts, not torts. Eagle Ins. Co., 279 AD2d at 58 (citing Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 84 NY2d 309, 618 NYS2d 609 (1994)). The “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” inquiry determines which state has the most significant contacts with the dispute. See Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, 2009 NY Slip. Op. 29109 (App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2009). Generally, Courts look at the place of contracting, the place of negotiation and performance of the contract, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and the domicile or place of business of the contracting parties to determine which state has the most significant contacts with the dispute. See id; Eagle Ins. Co., 279 AD2d at 59; Li-Ellie Service, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 1112(A), 2009 NY Slip. Op. 50719(U) (Civ. Ct. New York County 2009).

THE FINDINGS

New Jersey law applies to this action. The insurance policy involves a company doing business in New Jersey, and an individual representing at the time the contract was entered into that she is a resident of New Jersey and that the car would be garaged in that state.Thus, the validity of the making and cancellation of the contract must be determined under New Jersey law.

Under New Jersey law, no-fault benefits are unavailable when it is sought as part of an insured’s first-party claim for benefits under his or her own policy of insurance declared void because of material misrepresentations made to the insurer. Palisades Safety & Ins. Ass’n, 175 N.J. at 148. See also Remsden v. Dependable Ins. Co., 71 N.J. 587, 367 A.2d 421 (N.J. 1976); Lovett v. Alan Lazaroff & Co., 244 N.J. Super. 510, 582 A.2d 1274 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1990).

A misrepresentation, made in connection with an insurance policy, is material if, when made, “a reasonable insurer would have considered the misrepresented fact relevant to its [*3]concerns and important in determining its course of action. In effect, materiality [is] judged according to a test of prospective reasonable relevancy.” Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co. of N.J., 121 N.J. 530, 542, 582 A.2d 1257 (1990). As we have stated, “[t]he right rule of law . . . is one that provides insureds with an incentive to tell the truth. It would dilute that incentive to allow an insured to gamble that a lie will turn out to be unimportant.” Id. at 541-42, 582 A.2d 1257. Accordingly, our test for materiality “encourages applicants to be honest.” Mass. Mut. v. Manzo, 122 N.J. 104, 115, 584 A.2d 190 (1991) (explaining that misrepresentation is material if it “naturally and reasonably influence[s] the judgment of the under-writer in making the contract at all, or in estimating the degree or character of the risk, or in fixing the rate of premiums”) (citation omitted). Palisades Safety & Ins. Ass’n, 175 N.J. at 148-49.

There is no doubt that Barrietos-Mercado’s statements influenced how defendant analyzed the risk and ultimately assigned the premium associated to the insurance policy. Consequently, her statements were material misrepresentations that warranted the retroactive cancellation of Barrietos-Mercado’s insurance policy.

Plaintiff, a health-care provider, stands in the shoes of its assignor. It acquires no greater rights than that of its assignor. Lech v. State Farm Ins. Co., 335 N.J. Super. 254, 762 A.2d 269 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (“While an assignee’s rights can be no greater than those of the assignor, neither can they be any less.”); accord A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC, 12 Misc 3d at 11 (“We hold that only innocent third-parties who are injured are protected . . . and not a health care provider who deals with the assignor-insured at its peril in accepting an assignment of the insured’s no fault benefits.”). As a result, plaintiff may not recover first-party no-fault benefits from defendant.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial. The action is dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Date: June 3, 2009________________________

Genine D. Edwards

Judge of Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

21817/07

Attorney’s for Defendant:

Gullo & Associates

520 86th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

Attorney’s for Plaintiff:

Phillips, Krantz & Levi, LLP

14 Avenue T

Brooklyn, New York 11223

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case calls into question what precisely a peer review report, submitted by an insurance company in support of its denial for lack of medical necessity, must contain in order to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and/or to grant a defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As will be explained below, while a peer review report may be sufficient to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment it may not be sufficient to warrant granting of summary judgment to the defendant insurer, even when the plaintiff does not submit evidence to rebut the report. This dichotomy, in the context of no-fault insurance, has not been definitively clarified by the higher courts.

Plaintiff Millennium Radiology, P.C, (“plaintiff” or “Millennium”) commenced this action to recover from defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“defendant” or “NY Central”), the sum of $1,791.71 for the two MRIs it performed upon its assignor, Adrine Grant (“Grant” or “assignor”). In support of its application for summary judgment, plaintiff contends that the defendant has not submitted competent medical evidence to support its denial of the claim for lack of medical necessity.

Defendant opposed plaintiff’s application and cross-moved for summary judgment on the [*2]grounds that the services provided by plaintiff were not medically necessary. In support of its denial, defendant submitted a copy of a peer review prepared by its chiropractor Albert Claps, D.C. who concluded that there was no justification for the MRIs performed upon the assignor because the referring provider failed to indicate whether the assignor was experiencing “an improvement or degradation with regard to her causally related symptoms” and because the doctor failed to reveal why the MRIs were ordered or how the outcomes of these tests would assist in the treatment of the assignor.

During oral argument, defendant maintained that the complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to submit any medical evidence to rebut the peer review report. Plaintiff responded that it was under no duty to offer any evidence in rebuttal and that the conclusion of defendant’s expert regarding the medical necessity of the MRIs created an issue of fact which must be determined at trial.

A plaintiff makes a prima facie case “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received and that payment of no-fault benefits were was overdue.” A.B. Medical Services, v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780 (2d Dept. 2007). See, Ins. Law, §5106(a); 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c); Nyack Hospital v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Co., 16 AD3d 564 (2d Dept. 2005); Mary Immaculate Hospital v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742– 43 (2d Dept. 2004). It is clear that plaintiff has established its prima facie case. The affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager exhaustively details the record keeping procedures of the business, and clearly sets forth the procedures for the creation and retention of bills, of which she has personal knowledge. See Manhattan Medical v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, 2008 NY Slip Op. 51844(U), 20 Misc 3d 1144(A)(Civil Ct., Richmond Co.2008) citing Second Medical v. Auto One Ins., 20 Misc 3d 291, 294-95 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008). The affidavit further details that the bills at issue were made and kept in the ordinary course of business at the time the services were rendered and sets forth the precise mailing procedure that was followed. Moreover, the billing manager personally mailed the bill and forms.

A presumption of medical necessity attaches to a defendant’s admission of the plaintiff’s timely submission of proper claim forms, and the burden then switches to the defendant to demonstrate the lack of medical necessity. Acupuncture Prime Care, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., 2007 NY Slip Op. 52273U, 2007 NY Misc. LEXIS 7860 (Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 12/3/2007); A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 1018(A), 801 NYS2d 229 (Civil Ct. Kings. Co. 2005); Citywide Social Work & Psychological Services v. Travelers Indemnity, 3 Misc 3d 608, 609 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004). Defendant thus bears “both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion with respect to the medical necessity of the treatment or testing for which payment is sought.” See, Bajaj v. Progressive Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 1202(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. 2006). Thus, once a plaintiff has proven its prima facie case, the defendant must prove that the test was not medically necessary. Nir. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 7 Misc 3d 544, 546 (Civil Ct, Kings Co. 2005). A defendant may raise a triable issue of fact by submitting a denial of claim form stating that the claim is being denied based on a medical examination or peer review report requested by the insurer. The insurer need not set forth the medical rationale in its denial of claim form. Rather, the insurer need only submit a copy of that report to the applicant or its attorney upon written request. A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v GEICO, 39 AD3d 778, 779 ( 2d Dept. 2007); A B. Medical Services v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 ( 2d Dept. 2007). See, 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(b)(4).

Summary judgment is a “drastic and harsh” remedy and “should be used sparingly.” Utica National Ins. Group v. Providian Medical Services, P.C.,2008 N.Y Slip. Op.52610U, 22 Misc 3d 1107A ( Sup. Ct., Queens Co., 2008). See Epstein v. Scally, 99 AD2d 713, 714 (1st Dept. 1984 ). Summary judgment cannot be resolved by conflicting affidavits. Epstein v. Scally, [*3]supra . To grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear, on the papers alone, ” 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); Utica Nat’l Ins. Group, supra . The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding rather than issue determination. Precision Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., v. Travelers Insurance Co., 8 Misc 3d 435, 436 ( Civil Ct., N.Y Co. 2005), citing Brown v Achy, 9 AD3d 30, 33 n 2 (1st Dept. 2004). Once such proof has been offered, in order for the opposing party to defeat the motion for summary judgment, it must “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” Inwood Hills Medical P.C. v. Bronx Neurodiagnostics P.C., 3 Misc 3d 1110A, 787 NYS2d 678 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2004) quoting CLR 3212 (b). See, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986).

To defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the report must be in admissible form; i.e. signed and sworn to. See, Radiology Today v. GEICO, 20 Misc 3d 70

(App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 (App. Term, 2 & 11th Jud. Dists. 2004). Some courts have also held that in additional to being in admissible form, the peer review report or medical examination must raise a triable issue of fact for lack of medical necessity by setting forth “a sufficiently detailed factual basis and medical rationale for the claim’s rejection.” Nir, supra at 546 citing Amaze Medical Supply v. Eagle Ins., 2 Misc 3d 134A, 2004 NY Slip Op. 51701U (App. Term, 2d and 11th Jud. Dists. 2003). Cross bridge Diagnostic Radiology, PC v. Progressive Ins. Co. 2008 NY Slip Op 51761U , 20 Misc 3d 143A (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); Delta Diagnostic v. Chubb Insurance Co., 17 Misc 3d 16 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007). The quantum of evidence presented in the peer review report need not rise to the level of evidence presented at trial through the peer review doctor to substantiate the peer review report’s conclusion as to lack of medical necessity. Nir, supra at 546-547.

Plaintiff errs in contending that its motion should be granted since the peer review report does not contain competent medical evidence to support a finding of medical necessity, as a party cannot establish its entitlement to judgment “merely by pointing to gaps in the opponent’ s proof.” Falah v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 41 AD3d 638 (2d Dept. 2007). Furthermore, the peer review report is in admissible form and contains a sufficient rationale so as to create an issue of fact concerning medical necessity. While somewhat bare bones, the report does in artfully state that the MRI studies appear to be medically unnecessary because the referring doctor does not indicate whether the claimant experienced improvement or degradation with regard to her causally related symptoms, and there was no indication from the referring doctor why the MRIs were ordered or how the anticipated outcome of the tests would assist with the management of the assignor’s case.

However, while a peer review report may be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff, at trial, the peer review report must be supported by testimony regarding the “generally accepted medical/professional practice. “Nir, supra at 547 citing CityWide Social Work & Psychological Servs. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 3 Misc 3d 608, 612 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004). Generally accepted practice “is that range of practice that the profession will follow in the diagnosis and treatment of patients in light of the standards and values that define its calling. CityWide, supra at 616. As this court held in H.M. Parekh v. Allstate Ins. Co., Index No. 2041/07, Civil Ct, Richmond County, 3/04/08, at trial a defendant must show by medical evidence “that the treatment or services would be ineffective or that the insurer’s preferred health care treatment or lack of treatment would lead to an equally good outcome.” H.M. Parekh v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra , citing Fifth Ave. Pain Control Center v. Allstate Ins. Co., 196 Misc 2d 801, 807-08 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. 2003).

The instant peer review report, standing alone, does not rise to this standard and does not establish, as a matter of law, that the services rendered were not medically necessary. As such, this court finds the contents of the report to be insufficient to warrant the granting of defendant’s cross motion, even though the plaintiff failed to submit evidence to rebut the peer review.

Defendant cites a plethora of Appellate Term cases for the proposition that once the defendant insurer rebuts the inference that the services are not medically necessary, the plaintiff must refute this inference in order to create a triable issue of fact. The court first notes that the Appellate Term at times has not ruled that defendant must be awarded summary judgment unless plaintiff refutes the evidence offered by defendant, but only that “such proof may entitled the insurer to summary judgment.” Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 2 Misc 3d 128A, 787 NYS2d 919 (App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists 2004). See A.B. Medical Servs.v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins., 3 Misc 3d 136A, 787 NYS2d 675 (App. Term 9 & 10th Jud. Dists. 2004)(“summary judgment may, in appropriate circumstances, be awarded to the defendant unless the plaintiff comes forward with admissible proof in reply to create a triable issue of fact). The Appellate Division has not addressed this dichotomy.

Since the report does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact so as to warrant judgment to defendant (See, e.g.,. Delta Diagnostic v. Chubb, 17 Misc 3d 16, 18 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2007), this case will proceed to trial.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 30, 2009______________________Honorable Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

020438-08

Appearance of Counsel-

Plaintiff- Michael J Palumbo, 188 East Post Road, suite 300, White Plains, NY 10601, 914-681-7117

Defendant- Teresa M. Spina, 170 Froehlich Farm Blvd, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-496-5800

Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.

The issue before the Court is whether the submission of a notice to admit is [*2]sufficient to establish a prima facie case to recover no-fault first party benefits for unpaid medical expenses.

Under CPLR §3123 a notice to admit is a “written request for admission by the latter of the genuineness of any papers or documents…described in and served with the request, or of the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry.” (CPLR §3123(a)). If a party fails to respond to a notice to admit within 20 days after service, the matters therein are deemed admitted for the purpose of the pending litigation. (CPLR §3123(a)). A notice to admit is a vehicle for resolving and eliminating matters that may be factually relevant but are not really in dispute, thus a notice to admit is not permissible to seek admissions to material issues. (Villa v. New York City Hous. Auth., 107 AD2d 619, 620 [1984][1st Dep’t]).

In order to establish a prima facie case for first party no-fault benefits a plaintiff must present the claim forms submitted to the insurer in admissible form, then establish that the payment of benefits is overdue, and prove the claim and assignment forms were served upon insurer. (Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2004][2nd Dep’t]). Laying the proper evidentiary foundation is commonly done by a witness who can testify that the claim form is a business record pursuant to CPLR §4518. However, it has become increasingly popular for plaintiffs to attempt to forgo the necessity of a witness through the use of interrogatory responses and responses or lack of responses to notices to admit to establish their prima facie case.

The Appellate Term, First Department has allowed the use of interrogatory responses to establish a prima facie case, stating “having admitted receipt of plaintiff’s claims for no-fault first party benefits, defendants may not now be heard to argue that plaintiff failed to establish that the claims had been mailed and received. (P.L.P. Acupuncture, P.C., v. Travelers Indem. Co., 19 Misc 3d 126(A) [2008][N.Y.App. Term 1st Dept.], quoting Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8,9 [2007][N.Y.App. Term 1st Dept.]). However, there are notable differences between the use of interrogatories and a notice to admit. As previously mentioned, a notice to admit may not be used to seek answers to material issues, whereas, an interrogatory is given under oath and may be used to address any relevant question. (Villa at 620). Furthermore, the use of a defendant’s response to interrogatory questions in which it is stated that the claims were mailed and received followed by a subsequent denial is much different than the scenario in which a defendant fails to respond to a notice to admit and it is therefore deemed admitted that they received the claim.

Courts differ drastically on the treatment of the notice to admit to establish a prima facie claim. A number of courts find that the use of a notice to admit seeking admissions as to the receipt of relevant claim forms, bills and defendant’s denial of the same goes to the “heart of the matter” or is a “material issue” and therefore, inadmissible to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case. (see RJ Med. P.C. v. All-State Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 1140(A) [2007][NY City Civ. Ct. Bronx County]; PDG Psychological, [*3]P.C. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 1183(A) [2006][N.Y.City Civ. Ct. Kings County]). Meanwhile, other courts have held that the information requested in the notice to admit does not individually go to the “heart of the matter” even though collectively they may be dispositive. (see Seaside Med., P.C. v. General Assur. Co., 16 Misc 3d 758 [2007][NY Dist. Ct. Suffolk]). Further, other courts have held that the admissions of the receipt of relevant claim forms, bills and denials by notice to admit does not go to the “heart of the matter” and is therefore permissible; however, it does not establish a prima facie case because the formalities of the business record exception to the hearsay rule have not been observed. (Bajaj v. General Assur. Co., 18 Misc 3d 25, 28 [2007][NY App. Term 2nd Dept.]).

This Court is cognizant that the Second Department and First Department often differ on matters concerning no-fault litigation. However, since the First Department has yet to speak on the matter, this Court is bound by the Bajaj decision of the Appellate Term, Second Department. “The doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts…in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or [the Appellate Division of this department] pronounces a contrary rule.” (Striver 140 v. Cruz, 1 Misc 3d 29, 31 [2003][NY App. Term 2nd Dept.]), quoting Mountain View Coach Lines v. Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [1984][2nd Dept.]).

The Second Department has held that a plaintiff must lay a proper foundation for the admissibility under the business records exception to establish a prima facie case. (Bajaj at 28). According to Bajaj,the use of a notice to admit to ask the defendants if they have received the claim form is a proper use of the notice to admit. (id.). If defendant fails to respond to this notice to admit, it is then admissible that the defendant in fact received plaintiff’s claim form. (id.). However, an acknowledgment by defendant that they received the claim form is not a concession of the facts set forth in the claim. (id.). It remains the plaintiff’s burden to lay the sufficient foundation establishing that the claim form is a business record, and as such, is admissible to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. (id.). This holding continues to be upheld by the Second Department. (see Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 128(A) [2009][N.Y.App. Term 2nd Dept.]).

Accordingly, the Court finds that an admission by notice to admit that defendant received plaintiff’s claim form is not a concession of the facts set forth in the claim form. The plaintiff still has the burden to establish the claim form is admissible as a business record exception to the hearsay rule to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. Due to their failure to establish that the claim forms are business records, plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case. It is noted that the plaintiffs called no witnesses to testify.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s actions are dismissed.

The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: __April 30, 2009_______________

J.C.C.

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County

74171 CVN 2007

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

By: Michael C. Rosenberger, Esq.

Law Offices of Bryan Rothenberg

Attorneys for the Defendant

By: Kenneth F. Popper, Esq

Manuel J. Mendez, J.

Defendant AIU Insurance Company, moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 alleging there exists no triable issues of fact because the underlying policy was retroactively cancelled and deemed void ab initio, based on a material misrepresentation in the insurance application, pursuant to the terms of the policy and under Virgina Law. This is an action to recover no-fault benefits for services from a transportation company rendered to the assignor.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and claims that it is error to hold that a policy obtained using fraudulent misrepresentations could be void ab initio as indicated in Vehicle and Traffic Law §313. Plaintiff also claims that the defendant has not offered sufficient proof that the misrepresentation was material such that the insurer would refuse to make such a contract and [*2]provided no affidavit by an individual with personal knowledge of the investigation.

RELEVANT FACTS

Defendant issued a policy to the assignor, Jorge Garcia for a 1995 Dodge Caravan on or about April 21, 2007. At that time he listed his address as 424 Cornwallis Court, Ashland, VA 23005. The defendant claims that Jorge Garcia indicated on a residency request letter dated August 13, 2007, the car was garaged in Virginia, and that he had not changed his residency since he applied for the policy (a copy of the letter is annexed to the motion papers as part of “Exhibit E”). The policy issued contains specific language which the defendant alleges resulted in the policy being void ab initio as a result of the misrepresentations ( certified copy of the policy is annexed to the motion papers as part of “Exhibit C”).

Pursuant to its investigation of the claim regarding the accident of July 7, 2007, defendant held an Examination Under Oath and determined Jorge Garcia had been living in Bronx, New York and not Virginia at the time he signed the closing statement. The defendant cancelled the policy ab initio via letter dated October 24, 2007, with the rescission effective fifteen days from the date of receipt.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence, eliminating all material issues of fact. Id.; Klein v. City of New York, 89 NY2d 833, 834-35 (1996) Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1062 [1993], Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986) Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 316 (1985), Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427NYS2d 595 (1980). Once the moving party has satisfied these standards, the burden shifts to the opponent to rebut that prima facie showing, by producing contrary evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial of material factual issues. Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204, 208 [*1997]; Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 533-34 (1999); Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 427 [1988]. In determining the motion, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. (SSBS Realty Corp.v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 253 AD2d 583, 584-85 [1st Dept. 1998]; Martin v. Briggs, 235 AD2d 192, 196 [1st Dept., 1997]).

A conflict of law dispute concerning an insurance policy is resolved by application of the conflict of law rules that apply to contracts. Matter of Integon Insurance Co.v. Garcia, 281 AD2d 480, 721 NYS2d 660 [N.Y.A.D. 2nd Dept. 2001]. The test to determine which state law governs involves the “grouping of contacts,” the state with the most significant contacts to the dispute has the law which governs the outcome of the dispute. Eagle Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 279 AD2d 480, 717 NYS2d 351 [N.Y.AD2d Dept. 2000]. It has been held that “significant contacts” regarding an insurance contract include, “the place of contracting, … the place of negotiation and performance, the location of the subject matter of the contract and the domicile or place of business of the contracting parties.” Jones v. AIG Insurance Co., 15 Misc 3d 1123(A), [*3]841 NYS2d 219 [Sup. Ct. Queens County 2007], Matter of Integon Insurance Co.v. Garcia, 281 AD2d 480, supra , and Eagle Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 279 AD2d 480, supra .

The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Eagle Insurance v. Singletary, 279 AD2d 480, supra ,in a factual situation similar to that of the instant action, determined that New York’s governmental interests needed to be balanced against the significant contacts with Virginia. In finding that Virginia law applies, the Court identified Virginia as the location where the contract of insurance was negotiated and obtained by parties doing business and expected to reside in that state and there was an expectation that the vehicle would be garaged there, so that it had the most contacts. The Court also determined this interest takes precedence over New York State’s interest in protecting innocent third parties from denial of insurance coverage.

The policy in this action involves a company doing business in Virginia and an individual representing at the time the contract was entered into in Virginia, that he was a resident of that state. There are significant contacts with Virginia so that the law of that state applies to this action.

The Virginia Code §38.2-309, titled, “When answers or statements of applicant do not bar recovery on policy,” specifically states,

“All statements, declarations and descriptions in any application for an

insurance policy shall be deemed representations and not warranties.

No statement in an application or in any affidavit made before or after

loss under the policy shall bar recovery upon a policy of insurance unless

it is clearly proved that such answer or statement was material to the risk

when assumed and was untrue.”

The Supreme Court of Virginia, has interpreted the statute to apply to insurance companies contesting a claim on the basis of an insured’s misrepresentation and developed a two part test. The insurer is required to demonstrate,

“(1) that the statement or omission on the application was untrue

and

(2) that the insurance company’s reliance on the false statement

or omission was material to the company’s decision to

undertake the risk and issue the policy.”

It is not enough to prove a falsity, the insurer is required to clearly prove that the untruthful answers would have reasonably influenced the company’s decision to issue the policy. See Commercial Underwriter’s Insurance Company v. Hunt & Calderone, P.C., 261 Va. 38, 540 S.E. 2d 491(2001) and Montgomery Mutual Ins. Co. v. Riddle, 266 Va. 539, 587 S.E. 2d 513 (2003). [*4]

The defendant provides the Examination Under Oath (EUO) transcript of Jorge Garcia,

dated September 24, 2007 (annexed as “Exhibit D” to the motion papers), as proof of the material misrepresentation. Mr. Garcia states that although he was residing in New York at the time he entered into the policy in Virginia, he only worked and lived in New York and worked in a delicatessen for part of the year, and he would return and reside in Virginia during the summer when he did construction work. (EUO Transcript at pages 37-39) . Mr. Garcia also indicates that he had inquired of the person filling out the application for his policy, if he could change the listed address and was advised that he would have to wait until some bills arrived, and that since he was planning to return to Virginia he did not change the address. He indicates he was advised that a New York policy would be more expensive but that was not a factor in his decision to keep the address listed as Virginia (EUO Transcript at pages 51-52). The defendant also annexes the affidavit of Fae Pitts, an Underwriter III by AIG Marketing Inc., (annexed to the motion papers as “Exhibit E”) she bases her knowledge on a review of the records and indicates the policy was cancelled retroactively based upon material misrepresentations. Fae Pitts does not provide sufficient details as to the reliance on the misrepresentations being material to the company’s decision to undertake the risk. There is no statement from the individual responsible for filling out the insurance application or sufficient proof to confirm or deny the statements made by Jorge Garcia regarding dual residency.

CONCLUSION

This Court finds there is a conflict of law between Virginia and New York, and Virginia law prevails. Defendant has not met its burden of proof sufficient to obtain summary judgment concerning whether the policy was void ab initio. Defendant has provided proof that Jorge Garcia provided misrepresentations on his insurance policy, but has not clearly established that it relied on those misrepresentations when it undertook the risk or that truthful answers would have influenced the insurer’s decision to issue a policy. It is unclear based on the EUO testimony of Jorge Garcia, whether the individual responsible for preparing the application on behalf of the defendant was aware of the misrepresentations and continued have the policy issued. The defendant has not met its burden of proof, there is no need to address the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s papers.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 20, 2009

Manuel J. Mendez

Judge, Civil Court

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, April 3, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Phillips, Krantz & Levi, Brooklyn, for plaintiff. Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, for defendant.

{**24 Misc 3d at 543} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case presents the novel issue of whether an insurance company must notify prospective medical service providers that it will not reimburse them for any services they may provide to an assignor after a determination has been made, pursuant to an independent medical examination (IME) performed on the assignor, that further medical services are not medically necessary. As will be set forth below, since the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, do not apply to IMEs that are noticed and performed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim IMEs), such notification is not necessary.

Plaintiff Bayside Rehab & Physical Therapy, P.C. (plaintiff or Bayside or assignee), a medical service provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) seeking to recover $814.19 and $1,131.47 for services it provided to its assignors Aleisha Allen and Angela Allen (collectively referred to as the Allens or assignors), for injuries they sustained in an automobile accident. Bayside moves for summary judgment based upon a claimed prima facie showing that its bills were properly submitted and that the defendant GEICO Insurance Company (defendant or GEICO) failed to pay or deny the claims within 30 days.

Defendant claims that plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to provide adequate proof that its claims were generated or mailed within the regular course of business. In the alternative, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to submit several claims within the statutorily prescribed period of 45 days as prescribed by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. In its reply papers, plaintiff contends that since the defendant did not notify it about the IME cutoff, it was “not fair” and “not proper” for defendant to issue a denial of claims based upon the IME cutoff. Defendant responded, during oral argument, that because it informed the assignors that no more benefits would be paid as a result of the IME, the assignors were under an obligation to inform any future medical providers of this determination of lack of medical necessity. In light of the [*2]above, defendant contends that the matter should proceed to trial.

The Allens were involved in an automobile accident on June 17, 2006. Pursuant to a request by defendant, the assignors{**24 Misc 3d at 544} underwent IMEs by three different doctors on November 2, 2006. The three doctors determined that no further orthopedic, chiropractic, acupuncture or other types of medical services were medically necessary for the injuries suffered by either Allen related to the accident. Defendant GEICO thereupon terminated all benefits for the various types of medical treatment indicated in the IME reports, effective November 9, 2006. Absent from defendant’s papers is any indication as to how or if defendant notified the assignors of the termination of benefits much less notification of the IME cutoff to plaintiff.

Plaintiff subsequently provided medical services to both assignors in the spring of 2007 and submitted two bills on behalf of Aleisha on May 17, 2007 and June 12, 2007, respectively and three bills on behalf of Angela on May 17, June 6 and June 19, 2007, respectively. Defendant denied the May 17, 2007 bills based on plaintiff’s noncompliance with the 45-day rule and denied all the bills based on lack of medical necessity pursuant to the IME cutoff date of November 9, 2006.

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, 314 [2004, Smith, J., concurring]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51844[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008].) A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms ha[ve] been mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits [i]s overdue.” (Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2d Dept 2004]; Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 291, 293 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008].)

To lay a proper evidentiary foundation on a summary judgment motion that the tendered records were produced within the regular course of a medical provider’s business, plaintiff must provide a supporting affidavit by an individual who possesses personal knowledge of the office practices. (Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996, 999 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2007], citing CPLR 4518 [a]; North Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52523[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44, 45 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006].) Plaintiff meets this burden by{**24 Misc 3d at 545} providing an affidavit of its business manager who exhaustively details the record-keeping procedures of the business that created the records and clearly details the dates of the services, the amounts due, and her personal knowledge of the billing practices. (Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra, citing Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d at 294-295.) In addition, the billing manager personally packaged, sealed, applied postage to and mailed the bills. As such, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of entitlement. [*3]

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to submit several bills within the statutorily required period of 45 days as prescribed by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106, a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits. All automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002 are required to include a revised mandatory personal injury protection endorsement which provides that claims for medical treatment must be submitted within 45 days after services are rendered. (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [b]; 65-2.4 [c]; Rockman v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1118[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52093[U], *4 n 2 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008], citing Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 298 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 2002]; Eagle Chiropractic, P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50525[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].) 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 Med. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 52, 55 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006], citing Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-06-30 [June 2003].)

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 Natl. Ins. Co., supra, citing Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 12 Misc 3d 147[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51579[U] [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 the proof of claim. (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997], citing Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [g] [3].){**24 Misc 3d at 546}

Here, plaintiff submitted claims on May 17, 2007 for services provided on March 9, 12, 16, 20 and 28, 2007, which is more than 45 days after each service was provided. Furthermore, since defendant timely denied these claims on May 30, 2007, within 30 days of their receipt, defendant is entitled to assert its defense that the claims were untimely submitted.

As to plaintiff’s contention that the denial based upon the IME cutoff was somehow unfair or defective since defendant assignee never notified plaintiff about the IME cutoff based on lack of medical necessity, an analysis of precedent on what if any notification requirements attach to preclaim IMEs is in order. This issue was recently addressed by this court in Prime Psychological Servs., P.C. v Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (24 Misc 3d 230, 2009 NY Slip Op 29100 [2009]) wherein the court found that the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, do not apply to examinations under oath (EUOs) that are noticed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim EUOs). The same reasoning applies to preclaim IMEs.

The insurance regulations provide for IMEs and EUOs as part of an insurer’s “entitlement to ‘additional verification’ following the insurer’s receipt of a provider’s statutory claim forms.” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18, 19 [App Term, 2d [*4]Dept 2004], affd in part 35 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2006]; see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]; 65-3.5 [d]; see also All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008]; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C., 8 Misc 3d 1014[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; Inwood Hill Med. v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 1110[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50565[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2004].) Where an EUO or IME is requested as additional verification after receipt of the claim, the insurer must schedule the IME within the same time frame as medical examinations—within 30 days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification form (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d])—and must schedule an EUO within a reasonable time frame and as “expeditiously as possible.” (Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49, 51 [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].)

11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) provides that if the requested postclaim verification

“has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall,{**24 Misc 3d at 547} within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (Emphasis added.)

“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]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]).

In addressing whether these requirements applied to preclaim EUO requests, this court looked to Stephen Fogel Psychological (supra), where the Appellate Term found that an insurer had the right to conduct an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form or its statutory equivalent which “under the regulations, triggers the verification process.” (7 Misc 3d at 20-21.) The Stephen Fogel Psychological court then found that the right to an IME “at this juncture is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables” because section 65-1.1 (d) “is not, on its face or contextually, a ‘verification’ provision, and because the detailed and narrowly construed verification protocols are not amenable to application at a stage prior to submission of the claim form.” (Id. at 21.) The only party that needed to be notified of the preclaim IME was the assignor-injured party. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, 35 AD3d at 721.) In All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (20 Misc 3d 554 [2008]), Judge Sweeney extended this reasoning to EUOs, finding that an insurance company acted within its rights under the endorsement by scheduling an EUO before it had received the claim.

Based upon the above, this court, in Prime Psychological Servs. (supra), found that the postclaim notice requirements did not apply to preclaim EUOs, or by analogy to the instant matter, to preclaim IMEs, and that it therefore was of no consequence that neither the insurer’s Special Investigation Unit investigator nor its claims representative mentioned whether the EUO notices were sent to the assignor’s attorney. As such, this court determined that an insurer’s timely denial of a claim, [*5]based upon an insured’s failure to appear for a preclaim EUO, which constitutes a breach of a condition precedent to payment, is a valid ground upon which to award summary judgment to the defendant.{**24 Misc 3d at 548}

The same analysis governs what, if any, notice requirements attach to IME cutoff determinations based upon a lack of medical necessity. Where such a determination is made prior to the submission of a claim, there is no statutory requirement as to whom the insurer has to notify. Even the postverification notice requirements, which are inapplicable to preclaim EUOs and IMEs, do not mandate that the assignee medical provider be notified.^[FN*] 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) discusses where EUOs and IMEs are to be held and then sets forth that “[t]he insurer shall inform the applicant at the time the examination is scheduled that the applicant will be reimbursed.” The term “applicant” within the context of 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) specifically refers to the injured party (the assignor). (East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.,61 AD3d 202, 2009 NY Slip Op 01191 [2d Dept 2009].) 11 NYCRR 65-3.6, entitled “Follow-up requirements,” which was ruled upon in Prime Psychological Servs. (supra), refers to the eligible injured person as the applicant in subdivision (a) where it mandates that insurers mail a second application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits to the “eligible injured person.”

Second, from a purely logical vantage point, it would be an exercise in futility to require an insurance company to send a preclaim IME cutoff notice to the assignee since, by definition, an insurance company cannot prophesize which medical service entity, out of the hundreds which exist in the metropolitan area, an injured party might seek services from. Statutory construction must be sought which is “consistent with achieving [the statute’s] purpose and with justice and common sense.” (Freeman v Kiamesha Concord, 76 Misc 2d 915, 920 [Civ Ct, NY County 1974].) The courts are to adopt a construction of a statute “which will not cause objectionable results, or cause inconvenience . . . or absurdity.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 141, at 281; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 83 NY2d 447, 451-452 [1994].) 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,{**24 Misc 3d at 549} Feuerstein, J., dissenting]; see Statutes § 145; see In re Adamo, 619 F2d 216, 219 [2d Cir 1980].)

Here, the IME was conducted and the IME cutoff date became effective approximately six months before the Allens even sought treatment from, much less assigned their benefits to, plaintiff. Hence, it would be absurd to require defendant to notify this particular plaintiff provider about the IME cutoff as it had no way of discerning that the Allens might seek [*6]treatment at this provider at some date in the future. Plaintiff implicitly concedes that the Allens were notified of the IME cutoff date by contending that the “IME cut-off was never advised to assignee” and that the “IME exam was kept secret from the assignee” until the denial (reply ¶ 10). Since the Allens attended the IMEs and apparently knew that their no-fault benefits were cut off, they were under an obligation to inform plaintiff and any other medical provider from whom they sought treatment of this cutoff.

In light of the above, and the timely denials submitted by defendants, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and this case will proceed to trial.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Parenthetically, in the one apparent case that discusses this issue, the court held that either the medical service provider or the assignor must be notified about the IME cutoff. (Mollins v GEICO, 15 Misc 3d 1103[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50467[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2007].) This case, however, provides little guidance since the IME and subsequent cutoff date occurred at or about the same time that the services were rendered at the medical service provider.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, March 31, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sylvain R. Jakabovics, Brooklyn, for plaintiff. Freiberg & Peck, LLP, New York City, for defendant.

{**24 Misc 3d at 521} OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

{**24 Misc 3d at 522}In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, both plaintiff and defendant moved for summary judgment. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that the action is premature and should be dismissed because plaintiff did not provide the medical reports which it had requested as additional verification of the claims. The novel question presented is whether plaintiff, in response to defendant’s requests for additional verification of the claims, was obligated to do more than just inform defendant that it was not in possession of the medical reports that had been requested.

Factual Background

The facts are essentially undisputed. Plaintiff D & R Medical Supply is a provider of medical equipment. Plaintiff submitted admissible proof in support of its motion for summary [*2]judgment demonstrating that it had submitted to the defendant two claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical equipment that it had provided to its assignor. The claims were submitted on July 9, 2007 and July 25, 2007.

By letter dated July 23, 2007, defendant acknowledged receipt of the first claim. In the letter defendant stated as follows: “[a] report from the referring physician is required with comment regarding the medical necessity of the medical equipment.”

Plaintiff responded to defendant’s letter by its own letter, dated July 26, 2007, stating:

“We are in receipt of your letter dated July 23rd, 2007. Unfortunately D & R Medical Supply, Inc. is unable to provide you with referring physician report and/or any medical records that you are requesting for the above named patient. This type of documentation is not in our possession. We are medical supply company and provide supplies in accordance to the doctor’s prescription. Please request it directly from the medical provider.”

Defendant mailed a second copy of its July 23, 2007 letter to the plaintiff on August 24, 2007.

By letter dated August 11, 2007, defendant acknowledged receipt of the second claim and again stated that “[a] report from the referring physician is required with comment regarding the medical necessity of the medical equipment.” Plaintiff again informed defendant that it did not have such a report in its possession. On September 13, 2007, defendant mailed a second copy of its August 11, 2007 letter to the plaintiff.{**24 Misc 3d at 523}

To date, plaintiff has not provided the defendant with a report from any physician attesting to the medical necessity of the equipment at issue; for its part, defendant neither paid nor denied the claims at issue.

On its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s position is that it submitted its bills to the defendant who neither paid nor denied the claims pursuant to the No-Fault Law and regulations. In defense, and on its own cross motion, it is defendant’s position that the action on these claims is premature and must be dismissed. According to the defendant, the 30-day period within which it had to pay or deny the claims had not begun to run, inasmuch as plaintiff has yet to provide defendant with the reports of the referring physicians that had been timely requested as additional verification for each of the claims.

Analysis

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 [*3]Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2004]). The court notes that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s billing manager demonstrated that the annexed claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]). The burden thus shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Defendant failed to meet this burden.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the statutory time period within which it had to pay or deny the claim was tolled due to plaintiff’s failure to provide it with the materials it had requested as additional verification of the claims. Assuming that the letters sent to plaintiff by defendant constituted valid initial and follow-up demands for additional verification of the claims, plaintiff unequivocally advised defendant that it was not in possession of the medical reports that defendant was seeking. Certainly, there is no evidence before the court suggesting that these materials were ever in plaintiff’s care, custody or control.

Even under the liberal discovery provisions embodied in article 31 of the CPLR, a party to a lawsuit is required to produce only those items “which are in the possession, custody or control of the party” (CPLR 3120 [1] [i]; see generally Saferstein{**24 Misc 3d at 524} v Stark, 171 AD2d 856 [2d Dept 1991]; Corriel v Volkswagen of Am., 127 AD2d 729, 730 [2d Dept 1987]; Lear v New York Helicopter Corp., 190 AD2d 7, 11 [2d Dept 1993]). While the no-fault regulations provide that an “insurer is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim directly from the parties from whom such verification was requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]), this should not be construed as requiring a provider to provide materials over which it has no control. A contrary construction would violate the core objective of the No-Fault Law: “to assure claimants of expeditious compensation for their injuries through prompt payment of first-party benefits without regard to fault and without expense to them” (Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 225 [1986]) and would frustrate one of the main purposes of the regulatory scheme, which is “to provide a tightly timed process of claim, disputation and payment” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 281 [1997]; see also New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429, 430 [2d Dept 2004]). Imposing upon a medical provider the obligation to provide an insurer with materials that are not in its care, custody or control would also be illogical.

Finally, it is worth noting that defendant had a means of obtaining the materials it was seeking as additional verification of the claims. The no-fault regulations, particularly 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (c), entitle an insurer to receive items necessary to verify a claim directly from persons others than applicants for no-fault benefits (see Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 42 [App Term, 2d Dept 2007]). In Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., the appellate court held that the insurer acted within its rights when it sought medical necessity verification from the prescribing physician rather than from the plaintiff MRI provider and that the insurer’s request for verification to the prescribing physician tolled the statutory claim determination period (id. at 43-44). Pursuant to the holding in Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., defendant could have requested the medical reports from the [*4]referring physicians, whom plaintiff had identified in the claim forms. Indeed, the court in Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. suggested that the no-fault regulations would also allow an insurer to seek verification of a claim directly from the referring physician where the plaintiff applicant was a medical equipment provider who merely fills prescriptions, as is the case here (id. at 44).{**24 Misc 3d at 525}

The court has considered defendant’s remaining arguments in opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion and finds them to be without merit.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff may enter judgment against the defendant in the amount of $2,448.13, together with interest and attorneys fees as provided for under the No-Fault Law, plus costs; and it is further ordered that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

116467/04

Genine D. Edwards, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits from the defendant, for acupuncture services performed by its licensed acupuncturist to its assignor, Alan Yensi. A bench trial ensued.

At the outset, the parties stipulated that the plaintiff proved its prima facie case and the defendant timely denied the claims. In addition, the bills and denials were admitted into evidence. Plaintiff rested. At that point the burden of production shifted to the defendant to prove the basis of its denial. Before defendant called its witness, it made a motion to dismiss, based upon Great Wall Acupuncture v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 23, 842 N.Y.S.2d 131 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007); Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 41, 844 N.Y.S.2d 570 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007), contending that an insurer is entitled to remit payment at the chiropractic rate indicated in the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule. The plaintiff argued in opposition that the defendant was required to reveal its procedures for choosing the rate and the calculation of the amount. This Court reserved its decision.

The defendant’s claim representative testified that the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule is the tool used to pay healthcare providers. Since that schedule does not address licensed acupuncturists, the defendant compared the educational and licensing requirements and found that the chiropractic requirements are closest to the licensed acupuncturist. Therefore, the plaintiff was paid at the chiropractic rate. On cross-examination the claim representative testified that he was not the representative who denied the plaintiff’s claims, but indicated that the representative processed and issued the claims in accord with defendant’s policies and procedures, including using the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule.

After due deliberation of the credible evidence submitted, this Court finds that the defendant shouldered its burden of producing a proper grounds for denying full payment of the no-fault benefits based upon the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule. Great Wall Acupuncture, 16 Misc 3d at 23; Ava Acupuncture, P.C., 17 Misc 3d at 41; Ops Gen. Counsel NY Ins. Dept. 10-06-04. The plaintiff did not rebut this defense.

[*2]Accordingly, judgment in favor of the defendant and the complaint dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: March 6, 2009

________________________

Genine D. Edwards

Judge of the Civil Court

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, March 5, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Epstein McDonald & McCarthy, New York City, for defendant. Baker Sanders Barshay Grossman Fass Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff.

{**24 Misc 3d at 230} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

{**24 Misc 3d at 231}This case presents the novel issue of whether the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, apply to examinations under oath (EUO) that are noticed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim EUO). As will be set forth below, this court decides this issue in the negative.

Plaintiff Prime Psychological, a medical services provider, brought this action seeking reimbursement in the amount of $1,341.14 for medical services it provided to assignor Andrea Ortiz stemming from her automobile accident. Defendant Nationwide Property and Casualty Ins. Co. seeks an order granting it summary judgment based upon Ortiz’s failure to appear for an EUO. Plaintiff opposes the motion and argues that defendant’s notice for an EUO was defective and accordingly failed to toll the statutory 30-day period in which defendant must deny the claim, hence rendering the denial untimely.

Plaintiff treated Ortiz in its medical facility on three occasions from November to December 2006, and on December 14, 2006 mailed Nationwide the consolidated bill, which the defendant received on December 18, 2006. Prior to its receipt of the bill, Nationwide scheduled Ortiz for two EUOs, pursuant to the provision in its insurance policy, both of which Ortiz failed to attend. Defendant submitted an affidavit from an investigator of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) who had personal knowledge of the mailing practices and procedures surrounding EUO scheduling letters and stated that the EUO letters sent to Ortiz were made in the regular course of Nationwide’s business. The SIU investigator stated that he had personal knowledge that defendant mailed Ortiz three letters scheduling EUOs.^[FN*] The first letter was sent to Ortiz via certified mail [*2]on November 30, 2006, advising that her presence was required on December 15, 2006. On December 14, 2006, a voice mail was received from Ortiz’s attorney stating that Ortiz would not be present at the EUO. The next day, the defendant’s investigator spoke with an individual from the office of Ortiz’s attorney and advised him that since his voice mail was received after hours, it would not be counted as an attempt to adjourn. Accordingly, Ortiz’s failure to attend the EUO was counted as a no-show. Nationwide sent another letter to Ortiz on December 15, 2006, scheduling her EUO for January 3, 2007. Ortiz’s attorney called the defendant’s office{**24 Misc 3d at 232} on January 2 and requested an adjournment. Nationwide thus, by letter dated January 2, 2007, scheduled a final adjournment for January 11, 2007, which Ortiz failed to attend. Thus, only the last EUO was scheduled after Nationwide had received the bill.

On January 18, 2007, Nationwide denied the claim on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim was not billed in accordance with the fee schedule and that Ortiz’s failure to attend an EUO constituted a breach of the insurance policy condition that the eligible injured person may reasonably be required to submit to EUOs, which precluded coverage. Nationwide retroactively terminated Ortiz’s coverage, effective October 16, 2006.

To grant a motion for summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented. (Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51844[U] [2008].) In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant is required to establish, prima facie, that (1) its insurance policy in effect when the EUOs were sought contained an endorsement authorizing such verification; (2) the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed; (3) the date and place of EUO were not unreasonable; and (4) assignor failed to appear for the scheduled EUO. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2d Dept 2006]; Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49 [2d Dept 2008].)

Here, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of its prima facie case since it did not notify Ortiz’s attorney about the “follow-up EUO.” While the SIU investigator’s affidavit is silent about any mailings to the applicant’s attorney, the EUO notifications that were sent to Ortiz were cc:ed to her attorney. The issue thus presented is whether the language requiring that an applicant’s attorney be notified of a follow-up verification request applies to a preclaim EUO.

As a condition to coverage under the revised mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, “the eligible injured person . . . shall . . . as may reasonably be required submit to examinations under oath by any person named by the [insurer] and subscribe the same” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d] [Sec I, Conditions, Proof of Claim (b)]). Another condition to coverage under this section sets forth that an eligible person “shall submit to medical examination by physicians selected by, or acceptable to, the [insurer], when, and as often as, the [insurer] may reasonably require.” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d] [Sec I, Conditions, Proof of Claim].){**24 Misc 3d at 233}

11 NYCRR 65-3.5 details the verification procedures to be followed after the insurer receives the completed application for no-fault benefits (NYS form N-F 2). The injured party or that party’s assignee medical services provider must then submit written proof of claim (claim form—usually verification of treatment by attending physician or other health care [*3]provider—NYS form N-F 3) to the insurer within 45 days after the date the medical services are rendered. 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].)

However, an insurer may toll the 30-day period by properly requesting verification within 15 days from the receipt of the proof of claim form or bill (Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723, 724 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004], citing 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [d] [1]). The insurance regulations provide for an independent medical examination (IME) (and EUOs) as part of an insurer’s “entitlement to ‘additional verification’ ” following receipt of a provider’s statutory claim forms. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18, 19 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004], affd in part 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]; 65-3.5 [d]; see also All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008]; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C., 8 Misc 3d 1014[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; Inwood Hill Med. P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 1110[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50565[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2004].) Where an EUO or IME is requested as additional verification after receipt of the claim, the insurer must schedule the IME within the same time frame as medical examinations—within 30 days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification form (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d])—and must schedule an EUO within a reasonable time frame and as “expeditiously as possible.” (Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49, 51 [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].)

“[If the] requested verification[ ] has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar{**24 Misc 3d at 234} days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b] [emphasis added].)

“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]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]).

In the instant matter, it is clear that the defendant made two requests in writing to the insured for an EUO prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form from plaintiff on December 18, 2006, and that it adjourned the EUO scheduled on December 15th until January 3rd at the request of the assignor’s attorney on January 2, 2007. Therefore both the initial and follow-up scheduling letters preceded defendant’s receipt of the claim.

In Stephen Fogel Psychological (7 Misc 3d 18 [2004]), the Appellate Term found that an insurer had the right to conduct an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form or its [*4]statutory equivalent which, “under the regulations, triggers the verification process.” (Id. at 20.) The insurance regulations first mention the right of an insurer to request an IME (and EUO) in the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, “which is independent of the verification protocols,” and, in light of the broad language authorizing IMEs, the court found there “to be no reason to preclude an insurer from requesting an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form” (id. at 20). The reviewing court stated that such an interpretation furthers “the policies underlying no-fault insurance, including . . . the expeditious processing of claims” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]).

The Appellate Term then found that the right to an IME “at this juncture is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables” because 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (d) “is not, on its face or contextually, a ‘verification’ provision, and because the detailed and narrowly construed verification protocols are not amenable to application at a stage prior to submission of the claim form.” (7 Misc 3d at 21.) In All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County{**24 Misc 3d at 235} 2008]), Judge Sweeney extended this reasoning to EUOs, finding that an insurance company acted within its rights under the endorsement by scheduling an EUO before it had received the claim.

In light of the above, and since defendant’s right to conduct an EUO of the assignor, at this juncture, is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables, it is clear that the language governing the verification procedures and, hence, postclaim EUOs—that the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b])—is inapplicable to this preclaim EUO. As such, the fact that neither the SIU investigator nor the claims representative mentioned whether the EUO notices were sent to the assignor’s attorney is of no consequence.

Having determined that defendant properly requested an EUO before it received a claim, and that it was not required to send the EUO requests to the attorney, the court must decide whether an insurer’s timely denial of a claim, based upon an insured’s failure to appear for a preclaim EUO, which constitutes a breach of a condition precedent to payment, is a valid ground upon which to award summary judgment to the defendant.

In Stephen Fogel Psychological (35 AD3d 720 [2006]), the Second Department disagreed with the second portion of the Appellate Term decision which had distinguished the contractual remedies available to an insurer based upon whether the IME no-show was preclaim or postclaim. In the case of postclaim IME no-shows, the insurer could rely upon the remedy available upon nonreceipt of requested verification—the 30-day period in which to pay or deny a claim does not begin to run and any claim for payment by the provider is deemed to be premature. (7 Misc 3d at 20, citing New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]; see All-Boro v Progressive, 20 Misc 3d at 556-557.) However, this was inapplicable to preclaim IME no-shows, which must be governed by “general principles of no-fault” law; i.e., that a failure to attend a preclaim IME would defeat the presumption of medical necessity that inures to a medical provider’s properly submitted claim and hence would defeat a provider’s motion for a summary judgment (7 Misc 3d at 21-22). [*5]

The Second Department disagreed with this portion of the ruling, declaring that there was no distinction between the contractual remedies an insurance company could invoke{**24 Misc 3d at 236} depending upon whether the failure to appear for an IME occurred before or after the submission of the claim form. Since the appearance of an insured at IMEs (and EUOs) was a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy, an insurer could retroactively deny a claim to the date of loss for a claimant’s failure to attend IMEs. (See also All-Boro v Progressive, 20 Misc 3d at 556 [where Judge Sweeney opined that a failure to appear for a preclaim EUO was a “valid ground for denying the claim ‘retroactively to the date of loss’ “].) However, once an insurer received a claim, it was “required to adhere to the statutory and regulatory scheme for the processing of no-fault claims” and it therefore had to pay or deny the claim within 30 days of its receipt. (Id.)

Here, the defendant established the standard office practices and procedures used to ensure that the verification requests and the denial were properly addressed and mailed, and presented an affidavit from an SIU investigator who had personal knowledge of both the mailings and the EUO no-show. Defendant has established that it timely denied the claim and summary judgment is granted to defendant.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Defendant also submitted an affidavit from a claims representative who personally denied the claims and had personal knowledge of the office’s business procedures concerning the mailing of denials.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

131695/07

Plaintiff:

Sylvain R. Jakabovics, Esq.

2630 Ocean Avenue, Suite A-3

Brooklyn, NY 11229

Defendant:

Law Offices of Moira A. Doherty

50 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Suite 400

Uniondale, New York 11553

Genine D. Edwards, J.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover no-fault benefits from the defendant. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment and defendant cross-moves for the same relief.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. St. Claire v. Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 33 AD3d 611, 821 NYS2d 471 (2d Dept. 2006). See also Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 (1986). The motion shall be supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts. See CPLR 3212 (b). If the moving party fails to make such a showing, the motion must be denied, irrespective of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. See De Santis v. Romeo, 177 AD2d 616, 576 NYS2d 323 (2d Dept. 1991). Once the movant provides sufficient proof the burden of production rests on the adverse party to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. See Katona v. Low, 226 AD2d 433, 641 NYS2d 62 (2d Dept. 1996).

Plaintiff established a prima facie case as to the creation and mailing of the subject bill, in the amount of $1,104.00. Defendant, however, persuasively contends that plaintiff’s lawsuit is premature since the plaintiff failed to comply with outstanding verification requests. Defendant properly proved timely service of its initial verification request for an invoice, CPT codes and medical records. In response, plaintiff provided an invoice, but failed to provide proper CPT codes and medical records. Defendant sent a second and third verification request, acknowledging receipt of plaintiff’s invoice, but indicating that the proper coding and medical records were still [*2]outstanding. There was no further response from the plaintiff. Although plaintiff’s affiant indicated that it was his duty to handle verification requests and responses, he never asserted that he or anyone else did so in this matter.

This Court finds that the burden rests with the plaintiff to properly verify its claim. Plaintiff cannot simply rest on its laurels and ignore a verification request. See Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA P.C. v. Global Liberty Insurance, 20 Misc 3d 434, 858 NYS2d 587 (Civ. Ct. New York County 2008). Defendant did all it could do by sending two follow-up requests. Since the plaintiff desires to be paid, the onus is on it to ensure that the defendant has all of the required information to verify and pay the claim. Plaintiff completely ignored its burden and commenced this action prematurely.

Furthermore, it should be noted that, whether the plaintiff possesses the verification requested or it is in the hands of the referring physician, plaintiff cannot shift its obligation to verify a claim to the defendant.

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: February 26, 2009

____________________________

Genine D. Edwards

J.C.C.