Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

24656/05

Arlene P. Bluth, J.

Upon the foregoing cited papers and after argument, plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted.

In this action, plaintiff Capri Medical, P.C. seeks to recover first-party No-Fault benefits in the amount of $4,204.33 and statutory interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees for medical services it allegedly rendered to its assignor, Nail Abusov. In its moving papers, plaintiff submits following five bills which are the subject are this lawsuit: $1,593.37 (for date of service 4/9/03); $1,566.40 (for date of service 3/26/03); $302.17 (for date of service 3/19/03); $302.17 (for date of service 4/2/03); and $440.22 (for date of service 4/24/03). Plaintiff also submits the affidavit of its billing manager, Yelena Medvedik, who asserts that she personally mailed out the subject bills to defendant and [*2]that defendant issued “unreasonable and untimely denials” in response thereto.

The Court finds that plaintiff has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that the prescribed statutory claim forms, setting forth the facts and amounts of the losses sustained, were submitted to defendant, and that payment of no-fault benefits is overdue. See NYCRR § 65-3.8(c); D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v Amer. Transit Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 133(A) [App Term, 2d and 11th Jud Dists 2005]; Triboro Chiropractic and Acupuncture P.L.L.C. ex rel. Tacopino v. Electric Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 135(A) [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]. The burden now shifts to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact.

In opposition to this motion, defendant Auto One Insurance Company contends that it timely denied plaintiff’s claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. However, defendant’s opposition fails to establish by competent evidence that it timely mailed the denials in question. “Proof of proper mailing requires evidence of actual mailing or. . .a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed.'” See Comprehensive Mental v. Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 133(A) [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]. The affidavit of Travis Miller is deficient in several respects. First, Mr. Miller states that he is “currently employed as Line Unit Supervisor,” but he does not explain what that means or what his job entails. Second, while he states that he has worked for defendant since August 2002, he does not state in what capacity he was employed prior to becoming Line Unit Supervisor.

As for his attempt to establish that defendant timely mailed the denials of the subject claims, he does not state that he personally mailed the denials, nor does he make clear how he knows that the denials in this case were timely mailed. Mr. Miller also does not establish that it is his duty to ensure compliance with defendant’s mailing procedures. See Boai Zhong Yi Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 135(A), 820 NYS2d 841 [App Term, 2d &11th Jud Dists 2006]; Contemp. Med. Diag. & Treatment, P.C. v. GEICO, 6 Misc 3d 137(A), 800 NYS2d 344 [App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2005]. He “merely state[s] that the claims were timely denied without asserting personal knowledge of the mailing or setting forth sufficient facts to create a presumption of mailing.”Prestige Med. & Surg. Supply, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 127(A) [App Term, 2d &11th Jud Dists 2006]. Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 145(A) [App Term, 2d &11th Jud Dists 2006]. The Court further notes that Mr. Miller’s affidavit fails to make any reference to the $302.17 bill for date of service March 19, 2003.

Defendant also submits the affidavit of its Mailroom Supervisor, Jay Santiago, who describes defendant’s procedures for mail collection first by mailroom personnel from bins throughout the office, and then by the United States Postal Service. However, in the absence of competent proof that defendant timely generated denials of the subject bills and deposited them for pickup, Mr. Santiago’s affidavit is unavailing. Therefore, defendant has failed to meet its burden, and plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted, and plaintiff is awarded judgment in the amount of $4,204.33 plus statutory interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated:

ARLENE P. BLUTH

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by______ on _______

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

000013/2005

Thomas D. Raffaele, J.

After a bench trial, which was held before this Court on November 20, 2006, the Court finds as follows:

In this action, plaintiff provider-assignee seeks recovery of first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to assignor Krzysztof Wielgosz. The parties stipulated to the fact that the plaintiff had established its prima facie case, and that the insurer had timely denied the bills in question, with the only issue remaining for trial being the insurer’s defense of lack of medical necessity. The insurer, rather than presenting the live testimony of its peer-review expert, neurologist Daniel J. Feuer, M.D., submitted for the Court’s consideration the transcript of his deposition for admission pursuant to CPLR §3117(a)(4). Said deposition was noticed approximately three months following the filing of a notice of trial in this matter. Defense counsel conceded that he did not move to strike the notice of trial prior to noticing the deposition. Plaintiff’s providing physician, Dr. Deepika Bajaj, provided live rebuttal testimony at the trial.

IDefendant was not authorized to take the deposition of its expert after the notice of trialwas filed.

Initially, the Court finds that defendant Progressive, absent a court order issued following a motion demonstrating “unusual or unanticipated conditions,” was not entitled to notice or to conduct a pretrial examination of their expert peer-review witness. The Uniform Civil Rules for the New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR §208.17) provide that: [*2]

(c) Within 20 days after service of such notice of trial, any party may move to strike the action from the calendar or to keep it from being placed thereon. The affidavit in support of the application must specify the reason the action is not entitled to be on the calendar.

(d) After any action has been placed on the trial calendar pursuant to this rule, no pretrial examination or other preliminary proceedings may be had, except that if some unusual or unanticipated conditions subsequently develop which make it necessary that further pretrial examination or further preliminary proceedings be had, and if without them the moving party would be unduly prejudiced, the court may make an order granting permission to conduct such examination or proceedings and prescribing the time therefor. Such an order may be made only upon motion on notice showing in detail, by affidavit, the facts claimed to entitle the moving party to relief under this subdivision.

Defendant conceded on the record that no such application was ever made. Where a moving party demonstrates that “unusual or unanticipated conditions” have developed after the filing of a notice of trial which make it necessary that further pretrial examinations or proceedings be conducted in order to prevent undue prejudice to the movant, the trial court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct such additional discovery (see 22 NYCRR 208.17 [d]; see generally 22 NYCRR 202.21). Appellate courts have held that “unusual or unanticipated conditions” contemplates a condition which is “not in the control of the party seeking further discovery and . . . [causes] actual rather than potential prejudice” to third-party defendant (Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140 [2d Dept. 2000]), such as where a plaintiff suddenly is required to undergo surgery after the notice of trial is filed, (see e.g. David v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2005 NY Slip Op 25332, 2 [App. Term, Second Dept. 2005]) . In the case at bar, defendant has known that the deposed witness was expected to be called at trial since September of 2005, when the physician conducted his peer review on defendant’s behalf. Defendant failed to conduct a deposition of the doctor during the pretrial disclosure process. A notice of trial was filed on March 6, 2006. No motion to strike the notice of trial was ever made. The defendant noticed and conducted the peer review doctor’s examination before trial on June 5, 2006, three months after the notice of trial was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel by timely letter advised defense counsel that he objected to the post-notice of trial deposition. Clearly, the defendant failed to comply with the procedures set forth under 22 NYCRR 208.17[d]), nor did defendant show that any “unusual or unanticipated conditions” developed so as to justify further pretrial disclosure after the filing of the notice of trial (see Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, LLP v Bamira, 2005 NY Slip Op 51208U, 2 [App. Term 1st Dept. 2005]).

II.Defendant’s expert’s opinion was based on documents not in evidence and thereforeinadmissible.

Defendant nonetheless claims that the late deposition testimony may be used pursuant to CPLR §3117(a)(4).

CPLR §3117(a)(4) provides that:

the deposition of a person authorized to practice medicine may be used by any [*3]party without the necessity of showing unavailability or special circumstances, subject to the right of any party to move pursuant to section 3103 to prevent abuse.

However, even if the transcript itself is admissible pursuant to the above CPLR section, the contents thereof are subject to further scrutiny on the ground of the competence of the expert’s testimony, or lack thereof. In the case at bar, even assuming, arguendo, that there were conditions justifying the taking of the deposition of defendant’s expert subsequent to the filing of the notice of trial, the Court finds that the opinions expressed in the deposition were based upon documents which were not introduced into evidence at the deposition. Moreover, there was no evidence in the record of their reliability based upon the familiarity of the deposed witness with the procedures for the keeping of such records. Therefore, to admit the opinions at trial would be violative of the Second Department’s rule in Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2d Dept. 2002]).

In Wagman, the Second Department held that:

It is well settled that, to be admissible, opinion evidence must be based on one of the following: first, personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests; second, where the expert does not have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests, the opinion may be based upon facts and material in evidence, real or testimonial; third, material not in evidence provided that the out-of-court material is derived from a witness subject to full cross-examination; and fourth, material not in evidence provided the out-of-court material is accompanied by evidence establishing its reliability.

(Wagman v Bradshaw, supra at 86-87 [2d Dept. 2002]).

In Astrel v Yarborough, 2006 NY Slip Op 5302, 1 [2d Dept. NY App. Div. 2006], the Second Department recently reaffirmed this rule, holding that “[g]iven the absence of evidence as to the reliability of those out-of-court medical records, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion” [to preclude the physician’s testimony] (see DeLuca v Ding Ju Liu, 297 AD2d 307 [2d Dept. 2002]).

The Second Department, in Jemmott v Lazofsky, (5 AD3d 558, 560 [2d Dept. 2004]), held that a trial court erred in (a) admitting two MRI reports of the plaintiff’s knee and permitting a doctor to offer redirect testimony regarding their contents, since the reports were prepared by other health care professionals who did not testify at the trial and the MRI film was not admitted into evidence and (b) permitting the plaintiff’s attorney to cross-examine the defendant’s medical expert witness regarding an MRI film of the plaintiff’s back and the accompanying MRI report, as neither the MRI film nor the report were admitted into evidence, and directed a new trial on the issue of damages (see also D’Esposito v Kepler, 14 AD3d 509, 510 [2d Dept. 2005]); Wierzbicki v Mathew, 8 AD3d 476, 477 [2d Dept. 2004]; see also Sunnyside Plus v Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 25110 [Civil Ct. Queens Co., 2005, Dunbar, J.]).

In the matter before this Court, the deposition transcript of the peer-review physician indicates that neurologist Daniel J. Feuer, M.D. relied upon the following records:

[A] report of EMG testing of the upper extremeties by Dr. Bajaj dated 8/11/05, an EMG of the lower extremeties by Dr. Bajaj dated 8/11/05, a chronic pain assessment report dated 8/3/05, a report of MRI of the left knee dated 8/1/05, psychological evaluation dated 7/27/05 and a report of consultation of Dr. Cohen [*4]dated 8/8/05. (See transcript, p. 10, lines 3-9).

Dr. Feuer’s opinion was based upon a lack of documentation of “any consistent radicular or neuropathic complaints referable to the upper extremities which would support the necessity for this testing,” (see transcript p. 13, lines 12-15), along with “inconsistent findings reported in this case” (see transcript, p. 14, lines 9-10). The records referenced were not certified or authenticated (see CPLR §§4518, 3122-a). The EMG and MRI studies were not authenticated at the deposition or at trial using the expedited method provided by CPLR §4532-a, nor were all of the records utilized by the peer-review physician authenticated by Dr. Bajaj at trial. There was no testimony from the peer-review doctor or anyone else as to the reliability of such out-of-court records. As a result, Dr. Feuer’s opinion was based partly if not totally upon records which were not in evidence, and their reliability was not established. Thus, under Wagman and its progeny, it would be error for this Court to consider expert opinion based upon these records.

III.Strong policy reasons militate against permitting a trial by pretrial examination alone.

While not dispositive on this trial, the Court is constrained to discuss the following policy considerations:

The purpose of a trial is a search for the truth rather than an exercise in gamesmanship or a contest of strategies (see Finn v Morgan, 46 AD2d 229, 234 [2d Dept. 1974]; Ward v Kovacs, 55 AD2d 391 [2d Dept. 1977]). The court has a judicial responsibility to formulate rules of procedure to protect the integrity of the truth-finding process. A practice which hinders the search for truth is not one which ought to function under the broad imprimatur of the courts.

A deposition contains no more than testimonial evidence of the party-deponent and is merely the vehicle by which this evidence comes before the trier of fact. CPLR. §3117 confers upon the deposition no special qualities rendering its use immune to ordinary rules of trial practice. Thus, the discretionary power to control the use of live witnesses applies with equal force to control the use of a deposition. (See Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636 [1980] leave denied 50 NY2d 1059 [1980]).

A trial court sitting as a trier of fact has discretion to require live testimony, rather than a transcript which is handed up for the Court’s later perusal, particularly where, as here: (a) the defendant’s entire case relies upon the testimony of a peer-review expert who will opine as to the medical necessity of the service at issue, and (b) where the expert’s opinion is entirely based upon his review of some records provided to him by an insurance carrier or its intermediary vendor.It is of great value to the court sitting as the trier of fact to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during their testimony in order to assess their credibility. Depriving the court of the opportunity to view the witness’ demeanor during testimony is a serious departure from accepted court standards, and should not be entertained lightly. Likewise, it is the cornerstone of the court’s search for truth that all testimony be subjected to the rigors of cross-examination. Neither the physician’s testimony at the deposition, which plaintiff’s counsel objected and did not appear for, nor the testimony at trial, where the defendant decided not to have the doctor appear for, was subjected to cross-examination. These venerable devices, intended to promote the ends of justice for litigants appearing before the Court, cannot function as intended when parties rely principally, if not exclusively, upon an out-of-court perusal of a transcript of a deposition.

Further adding to the repugnancy of the process is the fact that these depositions are taken after a notice of trial was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel must then choose whether to attend an [*5]unsanctioned deposition and delay the disposition of the case, or risk a waiver of his right to challenge the use of such deposition at trial. Given the legion of no-fault cases in Queens County, the Court cannot countenance additional delays through the use of a procedure which contravenes the Uniform Rules for the New York City Civil Court, strains judicial resources, and delays the administration of justice.

To permit this practice to proliferate would be tantamount to encouraging the defendants to submit a second summary judgment motion where the first has already been considered, and to capriciously label it a “trial.” Indeed, such a “trial” fails to put the defendants to their burden of proof by presenting live testimony in support of its defense.

IV.The deposition of Dr. Feuer does not satisfy the defendant’s burden of demonstrating a lack of medical necessity.

Even were this Court to consider Dr. Feuer’s deposition in support of the defendant’s medical-necessity defense, it would not, in any event, sustain the defendant’s burden of proof in this regard.

As a general proposition, the court sitting as trier of fact is free to assess and reject even uncontradicted expert opinion, (see West Tremont Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51871U, 2 [App. Term 2d Dept. 2006]; 58A NY Jur. 2d, Evidence and Witnesses §676). The insurer bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion with respect to medical necessity of the treatment or testing for which payment is sought. (See Kings Medical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 767 [Civ. Ct. Kings County 2004]; Nir v Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 25090, 2 [Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2005]). In the trial context, few decisions clarify defendant’s burden of proof, or what evidence may be sufficient to establish that the services were medically unnecessary. Trial courts have held that, at a minimum, defendant must establish a factual basis and medical rationale for the lack of medical necessity of plaintiff’s services (see A.B. Med. Servs. P.L.L.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 50662U, 2 [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2005]; A.R. Med. Art, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 50260U, 2 [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2006] ; Long Is. Radiology v Allstate Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51090U, 3 [Sup. Ct. Nassau Co., 2006]; Citywide Social Work & Psy. Serv. P.L.L.C. v Travelers Indemnity Co., 3 Misc 3d 608 [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2004]; Inwood Hill Medical P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 1110[A] [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2004]). If defendant at trial provides an insufficient factual basis or medical rationale for its peer review report at trial, the court may afford the peer review report minimal weight, and defendant may fail to sustain its burden of proof. A peer review report’s medical rationale is insufficient if it is unsupported by or controverted by evidence of medical standards. A peer review report’s factual basis may be insufficient if it fails to provide specifics of the claim, is conclusory, or otherwise lacks a basis in the facts of the claim (see e.g Amaze Medical Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 2004 NY Slip Op 24119 [App. Term 2d Dept. 2004]). For example, a defendant may not establish lack of medical necessity if the only reason for the denial was that the peer review doctor did not have enough information in the claim file upon which a determination could be made (see Park Neurological Servs. v Geico Ins., 4 Misc 3d 95, 2004 NY Slip Op 24210 [App Term, 2d Dept. 2004]). Hence, a peer review may be insufficient if it is based upon merely a lack of evidence which was available, but inexplicably not supplied to the peer-review doctor by the insurance company. One court has held that a peer review report may [*6]be insufficient if the peer review doctor merely reviewed records, rather than examined the insured patient, in preparing the peer review report (see Alliance Medical Office, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., supra; see also Fifth Avenue Pain Control Center v Allstate Ins. Co., supra.). For example, the medical rationale may be insufficient if not supported by evidence of the “generally accepted medical/professional practice” (Citywide Social Work & Psy. Serv. P.L.L.C. v Travelers Indemnity Co., supra at 608 ). “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 Social Work & Psy. Serv. P.L.L.C. v Travelers Indemnity Co., supra at 616). Alternatively, if the plaintiff offers evidence that its medical services were consistent with generally accepted medical practice, the defendant’s peer review report may be afforded less weight and defendant may fail to sustain its burden of proof at trial (see Elm Medical P.C. v American Home Assurance Co., 2003 NY Misc. LEXIS 1337, 2003 NY Slip Op. 51357U [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2003] [Defendant peer review doctor’s conclusion that the electrodiagnostic testing was not “properly documented” did not contradict plaintiff’s testimony of medical necessity and defendant failed to carry its burden]).

Instructive in this context is Nir v Allstate Ins. Co., (2005 NY Slip Op 25090, 3 [Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2005]), in which defendant’s doctor recommended denial of plaintiff’s claim because, in his opinion, the diagnostic testing performed by plaintiff Dr. Nir was done prematurely. During testimony, the peer review doctor cited only a review of Dr. Nir’s medical reports as the basis for his peer review report. He did not physically examine the patient before writing the peer review report. He cited no medical authority, standard, or generally accepted medical practice as a medical rationale for his findings. Finally, defendant was not able to explain how the tests could be medically unnecessary when the tests did in fact yield positive findings of nerve damage. Such scant factual basis and medical rationale was held not to sustain defendant’s burden of proof.

This court finds that, even if admissible, the opinion by the defendant’s peer-review physician contained in the deposition transcript on the issue of lack of medical necessity is lacking in a factual basis, unsupported by cogent medical rationale as to generally accepted medical/professional practice, wholly conclusory, and based almost entirely upon his review of records which were not in evidence. By failing to appear in court, the Court is foreclosed from determining whether there were records available which were not provided to the peer-review doctor which would have been relevant to his review. When compounded by the court’s inability to observe the doctor’s demeanor and the lack of cross-examination, an opinion of this qualitative nature is essentially of little value to the court in rendering a just decision. Despite the fact that Dr. Feuer claims to have reviewed Dr. Bajaj’ records of examinations on both 7/21/05 and 8/11/05, he selectively fails to mention that, contrary to his testimony, Dr. Bajaj did in fact find consistent radicular or neuropathic complaints in the upper extremities. On rebuttal during trial, Dr. Bajaj, who did appear before the Court, testified as to her findings of weakness and spasms on the left upper extremity indicating a denervation and nerve damage related to the C6-C7 region, thereby efficaciously rebutting and contravening Dr. Feuer’s deposition testimony.Based upon all of the foregoing, the Court renders judgment after trial in the full amount prayed for by the plaintiff, along with statutory interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of the Court is directed herein to enter judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court. [*7]

___________________________

Hon. Thomas D. Raffaele

Judge, Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

105406 KCV 2005

Lila P. Gold, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action under the No-Fault provisions of the Insurance Law to recover fees in the amount of $2670.39 for medical services provided to its assignor.

Before the court began to hear testimony, Defendant made a pre-trial motion to dismiss, alleging that there was a lack of standing to bring this action. Defendant then asked the court to order the Plaintiff to produce a contract between himself and Advanced Healthcare Solutions, L.L.C., the billing company for Plaintiff, in order to establish Plaintiff’s standing.

Standing is defined as a party’s right to make a legal claim or seek a judicial enforcement of a duty or right. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), standing (n.). In the case before the court, Andrew Carothers M.D., P.C. has a legal claim to the no-fault benefits by way of an assignment provided to him for services rendered to the assignor (Exhibits 4, 8 & 12).

Furthermore, even though the Plaintiff was willing to show the contract to the court in camera, the court ruled that a contract showing the relationship between the billing company, Advanced Healthcare Solutions, and Andrew Carothers M.D., P.C. has no bearing on the latter’s issue of standing.

Plaintiff proceeded to offer evidence via the presentation of documents and testimony of Octavio Rodriguez, an office manager of Advanced Heathcare Solutions, L.L.C. in order to establish a prima facie entitlement for payment of the no-fault benefits.

To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff is required to submit proof that it timely sent its claim for no-fault benefits to the defendant, that defendant received the claim and that defendant failed to pay or deny the claim within thirty days. (See Amaze Medical Supply Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 3 Misc 3d 133A [App Term 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2003]).

In this action Plaintiff’s evidence included the claim form (NF-3) (Exhibits 2, 6 & 10), [*2]the signed Assignment of Benefits form (NF-AOB) (Exhibits 4, 8 &12), proof of mailing (Exhibit 14), together with the a copy of the treating doctor’s referral (Exhibits 3, 7 & 11), and the MRI narrative (Exhibits 5, 9 & 13).

Plaintiff further strengthened its prima facie case by having Defendant’s denial form (NF-10) (Exhibit 25) admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of showing that the claim was received timely by the Defendant and that the denial was timely. (See A.B. Med. Serv., P.L.L.C. v. New York Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 136(A); see also Kings Medical Supply, Inc. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 767).

At this point Plaintiff rested and Defendant reiterated his position that Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie entitlement to the no-fault benefits. Defendant’s position was that Plaintiff did not lay the proper foundation to have its documents admitted into evidence.

However, the court finds that Plaintiff did in fact lay the proper foundation to submit the documents into evidence, via the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez. “Where an entity routinely relies upon the business records of another entity in the performance of its own business and fully incorporates said information into the records made in the regular course of its business, the subsequent record is admissible notwithstanding that the preparer lacked personal knowledge of the information’s accuracy.” (See Pine Hollow Medical P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51870U) Since Advance Healthcare Solutions L.L.C. is a billing company whose regular business is to produce bills based on information imparted to them by Plaintiff and maintained these records in the regular course of its business, the proper business record foundation was established to admit the documents into evidence (CPLR 4518[a]). (See Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v. Leucadia Inc., 117A.D. 2d 727; see also West Valley Fire District No. 1 v. Village of Springville,264 AD2d 949)

Once Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement, the burden shifted to the Defendant to substantiate their basis for denying the claim. The Defendant contended that the services provided lacked medical necessity and therefore Defendant was not obligated to pay the claims.

The Defendant did not call a single witness or introduce a single piece of evidence to substantiate the claim of lack of medical necessity. The Defendant relied on the cross examination of Plaintiff’s witness and the introduction of the peer review report by Plaintiff, which was part of the NF-10. Defendant was of the opinion that if a proper business record foundation was established to properly admit Plaintiff’s documents into evidence, then Defendant’s peer review report, which was in evidence as part of the denial form (NF-10) admitted into evidence, was sufficient to meet Defendant’s burden of proof that the medical services provided by Andrew Carothers M.D., P.C. lacked medical necessity.

The Court rejected Defendant’s argument and finds that Plaintiff’s purpose for submitting the peer review report with the NF-10 was for completeness and accuracy of the document presented to the court. Furthermore, the court admitted the NF-10 together with the peer review report for the limited purpose of showing that the claim was received timely by the Defendant [*3]and that the denial was timely. Plaintiff’s inclusion of the peer review along with the NF-10 does not make the peer review available to the opposing party to use for establishing their burden of lack of medical necessity, (See A.B. Med. Serv. P.L.L.C. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., 5 Misc 3d 214) rather, to fortify Plaintiff’s prima facie case. (See A.B. Med. Serv., P.L.L.C. v. New York Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 136(A)

Accordingly, based on the evidence, the Court concludes that Defendant failed to sustain the burden of proof on the only issue before this court, lack of medical necessity. Judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $2670.39, plus interest and attorneys’ fees as provided by the Insurance Law, together with the statutory costs and disbursements in this action.

This opinion constitutes the decision of the Court. A copy of this decision will be mailed to the parties.

Dated:November 14, 2006

____________________________

Lila P. Gold, J.C.C.

Encl: Exhibits submitted to the court.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

90590/2005

Genine D. Edwards, J.

This is a bench trial of an action for first-party benefits, attorney’s fees and statutory interest commenced by Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. (“plaintiff”) as assignee of Stacia Barrow, Neida Campos and Vadim Bondarenko (“assignors”) against Travelers Insurance Company (“defendant”), pursuant to the New York Insurance Law and the No-Fault regulations. Plaintiff billed defendant a total of $3,583.45 for medical treatment rendered to its assignors.

At the outset, the defendant moved to preclude the admission of plaintiff’s bills into evidence, arguing that the bills were defective on their face since the relationship between the provider and treating physician was not noted. This Court reserved its decision.

The case law is clear that the plaintiff will not be entitled to direct payment of no-fault benefits if the alleged medical treatments were provided by an independent contractor. MGM Psychiatry Care P.C. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 12 Misc 3d 137(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006); Rockaway Boulevard Medical P.C., dba Queens Diagnostic Center v. Progressive Insurance, 9 Misc 3d 52 (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2005); Elite Medical Care, P.C. v. Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 12 Misc 3d 1183(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2006); Multiquest, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 10 Misc 3d 1061(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Queens County 2005); Multiquest, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 10 Misc 3d 1069(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Queens County 2005). In order to grant the defendant’s motion, the defendant had the burden to demonstrate that the subject services were rendered by an independent contractor. Defendant failed at that burden. The defendant did not proffer one scintilla of evidence that would persuade this Court that the subject services were performed by an independent contractor. Moreover, the fact that the bills did not indicate the relationship between the plaintiff and the treating physician did not compromise the plaintiff’s prima facie showing. Rockaway, supra.

Turning to the evidence adduced at trial, this Court finds that the testimony of Octavio Rodriguez, an employee of Advanced Healthcare Solutions, plaintiff’s billing agent, as well as the documents admitted into evidence establish plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to no-fault benefits. It should be noted that Advanced Healthcare Solutions relied upon plaintiff’s business records in order to conduct its business, thus, via proper foundation, those records were admitted into evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Pine Hollow Medical, P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 13 Misc 3d 131(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. [*2]2006); Foster Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. General Assurance Company, 10 Misc 3d 428 (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2005).

Instead of offering testimony or documentary evidence in defense of this matter, the defendant relied upon its cross-examination of Mr. Rodriguez. That examination failed to rebut the presumption of medical necessity that attached to the plaintiff’s claim forms. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict is granted. Judgment in favor of plaintiff in the following amounts: $912.00 for assignor Vadim Bondarenko; $879.73 for assignor Stacia Barrow and

$1,791.73 for assignor Neida Campos as well as statutory interest and attorney’s fees.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: November 2, 2006

__________________________________

Genine D. Edwards, J.C.C.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

112247/04

Delores J. Thomas, J.

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this motion and cross-motion is as follows:

In this action brought by a health care provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to its assignors, Reginald Smalls and Kevin Johnson, plaintiff moves for an order granting summary judgment in its favor in the sum of $3,673.07 as to each assignor plus statutory interest and attorney’s fees. Defendant cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) dismissing the action.

To establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff must demonstrate that it submitted a proper proof of claim setting forth the fact and amount of losses sustained and that payment of no-fault benefits is overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2d Dept]). The court finds plaintiff has established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Defendant contends the issue of timeliness of payment is immaterial in this dispute since [*2]plaintiff treated injuries did not arise from a covered accident. On April 4, 2005, Hon. L.A. Harris, Jr., of the Circuit Court for the County of Henrico, Virginia, granted defendant’s Petition for a Declaratory Judgment awarding it a default judgment and retroactively rescinding an insurance policy it had issued to Anthony Lindo (see Exhibit A annexed to cross-motion). Defendant states that it sought cancellation of the policy after it discovered Lindo made material misrepresentations on the insurance application. Plaintiff seeks to recover benefits under Lindo’s policy. Based on the retroactive cancellation of the policy, defendant asserts the thirty-day rule does not apply and the lack of coverage defense survives (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195). Therefore, defendant argues it is entitled to an order granting its cross-motion dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff counters that defendant admits coverage existed at the time the assignments were made in July, 2004. It was not until November, 2004 that the policy was rescinded. Furthermore, plaintiff argues defendant has failed to lay a foundation for the documents submitted in support of its position. Plaintiff states that defendant has failed to attach an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge who can “corroborate and lay a foundation for the documents.” Moreover, plaintiff argues New York law, which does not provide for retroactive cancellation of an insurance policy, should apply as it has “a greater interest in protecting its innocent victims against motorists covered by an out of state insurance policy.”

Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s cross-motion should not be granted because defendant has failed to lay a proper foundation for its evidence is unpersuasive. Defendant’s counsel indicates in her affirmation in support that she possesses knowledge of the facts based on a review of the files and that the documents submitted are true and correct copies. Defendant has submitted sufficient relevant documentary evidence to warrant consideration of its cross-motion.

Therefore, determination of the motion and cross-motion rests in a resolution of the conflict of law dispute between the two jurisdictions. Defendant claims that it properly canceled the policy retroactively under Virginia law. The policy was issued in Virginia based on factors which included that the insured was a Virginia resident, that the vehicle was registered in Virginia, and that it would be garaged in Virginia.

“Where there is a conflict of law relating to an insurance policy, the conflict must be resolved by application of the conflict of law rules relevant to contracts.” (Integon Insurance Company v Garcia, 281 AD2d 480.) Generally, courts now apply the “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” inquiry to determine which state has the most significant contacts to the dispute. In Eagle Insurance Co. v Singletary, et al. (279 AD2d 56 [2d Dept]), an action with a similar fact pattern to the instant action, defendant Singletary was injured in New York by a vehicle owned by a Mr. Suleiman who was insured by Integon Insurance Company. Integon did not dispute that there was coverage at the time of the accident. However, Integon denied coverage based on the retroactive cancellation of the policy it obtained under Virginia law after it determined the insured had made material misrepresentation on its insurance application. The Court found: “In sum, on the facts presented, New York’s governmental interests, when balanced against Virginia’s significant

contacts with the contract and legitimate governmental interest in protecting its honest policyholders from bearing the burden of paying claims incurred by dishonest policyholders, is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the application of New York law.” (Id., at 60; citation omitted.) Here too, the Court finds the application of Virginia law is proper. [*3]

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross-motion for an order dismissing the complaint is granted.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:Brooklyn, New York

October 24, 2006

DELORES J. THOMAS

Judge Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

121948/2005

Genine D. Edwards, J.

In this action to recover No-Fault benefits, statutory interest and attorney’s fees, plaintiff makes a motion for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moves for the same relief on the ground that the services allegedly provided by the plaintiff were not medically necessary.

To establish a prima facie case of entitlement to No-Fault benefits the plaintiff must demonstrate that it provided defendant with a claim for services rendered, setting forth the facts and amount of the loss and that the claim was not paid nor denied nor was verification requested. Nyack Hospital v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company 16 AD3d 564 (2nd Dept. 2005); Mary Immaculate Hospital v. Allstate Insurance Company 5 AD3d 742 (2nd Dept. 2004); Careplus Medical Supply Inc. v. General Assurance Company 7 Misc 3d 126(A) (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2005). If plaintiff’s burden is met then the defendant has the burden of proving that triable issues of fact exist. Montefiore Medical Center v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company 9 AD3d 354 (2nd Dept. 2004); Liberty Queens Medical, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 2002 NY Slip Op. 40420 (U) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2002); A.B. Medical Services PLLC, DAV v. Allstate Insurance Company, 8 Misc 3d 137(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2005). Upon such proof, the plaintiff is obligated to rebut such evidence or risk dismissal. A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 7 [*2]Misc 3d 822 (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2005); Bedford Park Medical Practice P.C. v. American Transit Insurance Co., 8 Misc 3d 1025(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2005).

In the instant case, the plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to no-fault benefits in the amounts of $129.28 and $182.86, via appending the defendant’s denial of claim forms to its motion. King’s Medical Supply Inc. v. Country-Wide Insurance Company, 5 Misc 3d 767 (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2004); Capri Medical, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 11 Misc 3d 1073(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Kings County 2006); AT Medical P.C. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 11 Misc 3d 142(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006); A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 3 Misc 3d 136(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2004); Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. ELRAC Inc., 12 Misc 3d 119 (2nd Dept. 2006). Also, plaintiff’s burden of proof for the claim in the amount of $297.12 was established since the defendant attached its denial of claim form, indicating that it received the claim, to its cross-motion. Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. ELRAC Inc., 12 Misc 3d 126(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006); Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 130(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006).

With respect to the claim for the amount of $129.28, it is clear and plaintiff agrees that payment was made, albeit late. The query is whether plaintiff is still entitled to attorney’s fees. According to Insurance Law §5106, the plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees when the claim was denied or overdue. Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York v. Maryland Casualty Company, 90 NY2d 274 (1997); Function Supply v. Progressive Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 1123(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. Queens County 2005).

Now we move to defendant’s cross-motion. It is clear that Kelly Andre’s affidavit established that all of the subject denials were timely served upon the plaintiff. With respect to the claims in the amounts: $297.17 and $182.86, the defendant denied the claims based upon lack of medical necessity. In support of this contention the defendant attached an admissible peer review report that set forth a competent physician opinion. Thus, the defendant sustained its burden of production of a material issue of fact for trial. Triboro Chiropractic and Acupuncture PLLC v. Electric Insurance Company, 2 Misc 3d 135(A) (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2004); Hempstead Turnpike Open MRI and Imaging v. Progressive Insurance Company, 12 Misc 3d 137(A) (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2006). However, upon review of the subject bills and the corresponding peer review report, this Court is not persuaded that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. The presumption of medical necessity that attached to the claim forms has not been rebutted by the defendant’s peer review report. Bedford Park Medical Practice P.C., supra.

Accordingly it is hereby,

Ordered that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is granted only as to the claim for attorney’s fees for the claim amount of $129.28. Judgment should be entered in favor of the

plaintiff in the amount of $60.00. It is further ordered that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Issues of fact exist regarding the medical necessity of the claims in the amounts of $297.17 and $182.86.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: October 12, 2006__________________________________

Genine D. Edwards, J.C.C.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, October 2, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossmanfass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff. Cambio, Votto, Cassata & Gullo, Staten Island, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

The issue presented in this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits is how attorney’s fees should be calculated in an action that involves multiple assignors and the submission of multiple bills on different dates.

Factual Background:

The trial of this action was scheduled to begin on April 26, 2006. At that time, the parties entered into a written stipulation settling all aspects of the action except for the issue of attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, defendant agreed to pay a specified portion of each of the 21 bills that were in dispute. The bills were submitted on behalf of three assignors and each bill was submitted on a different date.

Plaintiff maintains that, for each bill, he is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the amount of the bill, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum of $850, whichever amount is greater. Defendant maintains that, for each assignor, plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the aggregate amount of all the bills that were submitted on behalf of that assignor, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum of $850.

For the following reasons, the court agrees with defendant.

Discussion:

The no-fault regulation that governs awards of attorney’s fees is 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section,^[FN1] the minimum attorney’s fee payable pursuant to this Subpart shall be $60.” 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (e) provides, in pertinent part, that

“[f]or all other disputes subject to arbitration, subject to the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of this section, the attorney’s fee shall be limited as follows: 20 percent of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest thereon, awarded by the arbitrator or court, subject to a maximum fee of $850. . . .”

On October 8, 2003, the New York State Insurance Department issued an opinion letter interpreting 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e) (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-04 [2003]). The precise question addressed by the New York State Insurance Department in the opinion letter was:

“When an assignee No-Fault provider submits bills for health services rendered to an eligible injured person to that person’s insurer, and such bills are either denied or partially paid and the provider thereafter initiates a court action to contest the denials of the multiple bills which results in a payment award to the provider, is the provider entitled to a minimum attorney’s fee of $60 for each denied bill now required to be paid, or is the proper amount of attorney’s fees based upon the aggregate sum of all bills awarded reimbursement by the Court in the single action that was commenced?” (Emphasis added.)

The New York State Insurance Department answered the question as follows:

“The minimum amount of attorney’s fees awarded to an assignee health provider who has prevailed in a court action brought against a No-Fault insurer is based upon the aggregate amount of payment required to be reimbursed based upon the amount awarded for each bill which had been submitted and denied. The minimum attorney fee amount of $60 is not due and owing for each bill submitted as part of the total amount of the disputed claim sought in the court action.” (Emphasis added.)

The Department of Insurance concluded that court-initiated actions to resolve payment disputes come within the purview of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (e) since such disputes are “subject to arbitration” in that the provider had the option to seek a resolution of the dispute by submitting it for no-fault arbitration in the first instance. It went on to reason:

“Section 65-4.6(e) makes it clear that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded will be based upon 20% of the total amount of first party benefits awarded. That total amount is derived from the total amount of individual bills disputed in either a court action or arbitration, regardless of whether one bill or multiple bills are presented as part of a total claim for benefits, based upon the health services rendered by a provider to the same eligible insured.” (Emphasis added.)

Pursuant to section 65-4.6 (e), the total amount due the attorney will be derived by calculating 20% of the total claim which is resolved in favor of the applicant, which amount is totaled from the total amount of disputed bills which are submitted on behalf of the applicant. This total amount is subject to a cap of $850. Where 20% of the total claim awarded results in an amount less than $60, the attorney is entitled to the minimum $60 fee pursuant to section 65-4.6 (c). Since the 20% calculation is based upon benefits awarded from the total number of disputed bills [*3]in a court action commenced, an attorney would not be entitled to a $60 fee for each disputed bill which is resolved in favor of the applicant.

It is well settled that an administrative agency’s construction and interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to the greatest weight (Matter of Herzog v Joy, 74 AD2d 372, 375 [1st Dept 1980], affd 53 NY2d 821 [1981]; Matter of Tommy & Tina, Inc. v Department of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 95 AD2d 724, 724 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 671 [1984]). If an administrative agency’s interpretation of one of its own regulations is neither irrational nor unreasonable nor counter to the clear wording of a statutory provision, it should be upheld (Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 333 [1996]; Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]; see also, Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins. of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 753, 761-762 [1988]).

11 NYCRR 65-4.6 was promulgated by the Department of Insurance, the administrative agency empowered to implement and interpret the No-Fault Law (see Ostrer v Schenck, 41 NY2d 782 [1977]; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863 [2003]; Breen v Cunard Lines S. S. Co., 33 NY2d 508, 511 [1974]; Insurance Law § 301). In the court’s view, its interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 was neither irrational, unreasonable nor counter to any statutory provision.^[FN2] Plaintiff’s suggestion that opinion letters issued by administrative agencies carry little weight is without merit (see, e.g. Matter of New York State Assn. of Life Underwriters v New York State Banking Dept., 190 AD2d 338, 342-343 [3d Dept 1993], affd 83 NY2d 353 [1994] [holding that deference had to be given to an opinion letter issued by the New York State Banking Department which interpreted Banking Law § 96 unless the interpretation was irrational or unreasonable]; see also Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 73, 75 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50693[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; Bronx Med. Servs., P.C. v Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51022[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2003]).^[FN3]

Plaintiff’s contention that the holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (207 AD2d 338, 339 [2d Dept 1994]) and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance [*4]Co. of N. Am. (208 AD2d 501, 501-502 [2d Dept 1994]) are dispositive of the issues before the court is also without merit. At issue in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. was the interplay between 11 NYCRR former 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and 11 NYCRR former 65.17 (b) (6) (v), the predecessor no-fault regulations to 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e). 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) provided: “Except as provided in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, the minimum attorney’s fee payable pursuant to this section shall be $60.” 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) provided, in pertinent part, as follows: “For all other disputes subject to AAA and IDA arbitrations, subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of this paragraph, the attorney’s fee shall be limited as follows: 20 percent of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest thereon, awarded by the arbitrator or court, subject to a maximum fee of $850.”

In both Smithtown Gen. Hosp.^[FN4] and Hempstead Gen. Hosp.^[FN5] the Court interpreted 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and (v) as requiring awards of attorney’s fees to be calculated on a “per claim” basis. Plaintiff contends that since the language of 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and (v) is virtually identical to the language of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e), the holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. are controlling. The court disagrees. The holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. have little bearing on the precise issue presented here, whether the court should defer to the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. This issue was not before the Court in either Smithtown Gen. Hosp. or Hempstead Gen. Hosp. Indeed, at the time those cases were decided, the Department of Insurance had yet to interpret 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 or the predecessor regulations governing attorney’s fee awards.

Further, defendant correctly points out that the holding in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. is not at all inconsistent with the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. [*5]While the Court in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. held that attorney’s fees should be calculated on a “per claim” basis, the complaint^[FN6] filed in Smithtown reflects that each of the 21 claims at issue in the action was submitted on behalf of a different assignor. The holding is therefore perfectly consistent with the Department of Insurance’s view, as stated in the opinion letter, that attorney’s fee awards should be based on “the total amount of individual bills disputed in either a court action or arbitration, regardless of whether one bill or multiple bills are presented as part of a total claim for benefits, based upon the health services rendered by a provider to the same eligible insured” (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-08 [emphasis added]).^[FN7]

For all of the above reasons, the court adopts the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 and holds that for each assignor in the action, plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the total amount of the first-party benefits awarded for services provided to that assignor, plus interest thereon, whichever amount is greater, subject to a maximum of $850.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered in plaintiff’s favor in accordance with the stipulation of settlement together with interest and attorney’s fees, as provided for under the No-Fault Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as costs and disbursements.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Neither of these subdivisions apply in this case.

Footnote 2: The only statutory provision dealing with attorney’s fees under the No-Fault Law is Insurance Law § 5106 (a), which, in pertinent part, provides that “[i]f a valid claim [for first-party benefits] or portion was overdue, the claimant shall also be entitled to recover his attorney’s reasonable fee, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment of the overdue claim, subject to limitations promulgated by the superintendent in regulations.”

Footnote 3: In Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C., S & M Supply and Bronx Med. Servs., P.C., the various Appellate Terms held that the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of a regulation as articulated in an advisory “Circular Letter” is entitled to great deference. The court sees no reason why the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of a regulation as articulated in an opinion letter should be treated differently.

Footnote 4: In Smithtown, the Court stated:

“Concerning attorneys’ fees, once a court action has been commenced, 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) grants an attorneys’ fee on no-fault insurance claims of 20% of the amount of first-party benefits awarded plus interest, with a ceiling of $850 per claim. Further, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii), with certain exceptions not here applicable, there is a minimum fee of $60 on each such claim. Here, although the court awarded attorneys’ fees, it failed to follow the formula provided under 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v), incorrectly interpreted the $850 ceiling to apply to the entire action, rather than to each claim, and failed to set a minimum fee of $60 per claim. Accordingly, upon remittitur, the Supreme Court is directed to calculate the attorneys’ fee due in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v), and (iii)” (207 AD2d at 339 [emphasis added]).

Footnote 5: In Hempstead General Hosp., the Court stated:

“Once an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits has been commenced, 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) grants attorney’s fees of 20% of the amount of the first-party benefits awarded, plus interest, with a ceiling of $850 per claim. . . . Further, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii), with certain exceptions not applicable to this case, there is a minimum fee of $60 per claim. Accordingly, upon remittitur, the Supreme Court is directed to calculate the attorney’s fees due in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) and (iii)” (208 AD2d at 501 [emphasis added]).

Footnote 6: Defendant provided the court with a copy of the complaint in support of its position.

Footnote 7: Whether the holding in Hempstead Gen. Hosp. conflicts with the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 remains unclear.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

8104/06

Attorney for Plaintiff, Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. (In Both cases):

Gregory Cherchione, Esq.

2444 Broadway, Suite 362

New York, NY 10024

Tel.: (212) 285-3800

Attorneys for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (In Both Actions):

Burke, Lipton Puleo, McCarthy & Gordon

10 Bank Street, Suite 1040

White Plains, NY 10606

Tel.: (914) 997-8100

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moves for an order changing the venue of this action to Bronx County.

The venue provision of the Civil Court Act that governs transitory actions is Civil Court Act § 301. Civil Court Act § 301[a], as it pertains to the issue at hand, provides that “an action. . . shall be brought in . . .the county in which one of the parties resides at the commencement thereof.” Defendant contends that plaintiff improperly set venue in Richmond because neither plaintiff nor the defendant are residents of Richmond County.

In support of its contention that plaintiff is not a resident of Richmond County, defendant annexed various medical records indicating that plaintiff’s assignor resides in Bronx County. “If the plaintiff is an assignee of the cause of action, the original owner of the cause of action shall be deemed the plaintiff for the purpose of determining proper venue” (Civil Court Act § 305[a] ).

In support of its contention that defendant is not a Richmond County resident, defendant submitted the affidavit of one of its claims managers who stated that “Liberty does not have any claims, sales or offices of any kind in Richmond County, NY All no-fault bills are submitted to the New York State No-Fault office in Suffolk County.” The nearest claims office is in Nassau County. The nearest sales office to Richmond County is located in Kings County at 4201 Avenue M in Brooklyn. The nearest legal office is in New York County.”

Under the Civil Court Act, “[a] corporation . . . shall be deemed a resident of any county wherein it transacts business, keeps an office, has an agency or is established by law ” (Civil Court Act § 305[b]). The issue presented, as the court sees it, is whether defendant’s submissions demonstrated that defendant does not “transact business” within Richmond County within the meaning of (Civil Court Act § 305[b]). The Court holds that they do did not.

Defendant’s submissions did not foreclose the very distinct possibility that defendant issues insurance policies covering Richmond County residents. Likewise, defendant’s [*2]submissions did not foreclose the distinct possibility that defendant engaged in purposeful activity in Richmond County by regularly corresponding, by mail and/or telephone, with its policy holders in Richmond County by delivering insurance policies, sending invoices and seeking and collecting premiums from them. These acts, in the court’s view, would be sufficient to establish that defendant transacts business in Richmond County (see Mingmen Acupuncture Services, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 183 Misc 2d 270, 280 [Civ. Ct, Bronx County, 1999, Victor, J.]; Neurologic Services, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 183 Misc 2d 496, 498 [Civil Ct., Bronx County 1999, Ruiz, J.]; see also Rung v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 139 AD2d 914, 915 [4th Dep ‘t 1988] ). The court respectfully disagrees with the opposite result reached in Quality Medical Healthcare, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 182 Misc 2d 991 [Sup. Ct., Bronx County, 1999, Brigantti-Hughes, J.].

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s motion is in all respects DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 22, 2006_____________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 22, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff. Bruno Gerbino & Macchia, LLP, Melville, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

This action to recover first-party no-fault benefits presents a novel issue. After receiving each of the disputed claims, defendant made timely requests for additional verification thereby tolling the 30-day period in which it had to pay or deny the claims. When plaintiff did not provide the verification, defendant made an additional request for the verification 28 calendar days later. When plaintiff failed to provide the verification, defendant denied the claims citing plaintiff’s failure to provide the verification as its only defense. The issue presented is whether, under these circumstances, defendant’s denials of claim, all of which were issued more than 30 days after it received the claims, were timely. The court concludes that they were not.

Factual Background

This action involves three claims for first-party no-fault benefits totaling $5,698.45 for electrodiagnostic testing of plaintiff’s two assignors. The trial of the action was scheduled for April 19, 2006. At that time, the parties waived their right to a trial and agreed to submit the matter to the court for resolution based on stipulated facts. The parties stipulated that defendant received each of the claims on February 13, 2003; that on February 25, 2003, defendant requested additional verification of each claim, i.e.—a letter of medical necessity from the referring physician; that on March 25, 2003, defendant made a second request for the same verification; that the requested verification was never provided; and that on January 26, 2004, defendant denied each of the claims citing plaintiff’s failure to provide verification as its only defense. The claim forms, an assignment of benefits for each assignor, defendant’s first and second requests for verification and defendant’s denials of claim were all stipulated into evidence.

Defendant maintains that it properly denied the claims and that it is therefore entitled to judgment dismissing the action.

Plaintiff maintains that while defendant’s initial requests for additional verification were timely and tolled the 30-day period in which defendant had to pay or deny the claims, the toll was eviscerated when defendant failed to send out a follow-up request for the additional verification within the 10-day time period specified in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b). Plaintiff correctly points out that defendant mailed out the second requests only 28 days after the first requests had been [*2]mailed. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), defendant was required to wait at least 30 calendar days before it re-requested the verification.

Discussion

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 N.Y. 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 N.Y., 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 [2d Dept 2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2d Dept 2002]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 699, 700 [2d 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]).

In Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431, 432 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]), the Court addressed the consequences of an insurer’s failure to seek additional verification of a claim in compliance with the no-fault regulations then in effect. The defendant in that case timely requested that plaintiff provide a copy of the hospital record of its assignor as additional verification of the claim. When plaintiff did not provide the hospital record within 30 calendar days, defendant did not do any of the follow-up required by 11 NYCRR former 65.15 (e) (2), which, in relevant part, provided:

“At a minimum, if any 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 originally requested, either by a telephone call, properly documented in the file, or by mail.”

Although plaintiff ultimately provided the hospital record, defendant did not receive it until more than 30 days had elapsed since the claim was submitted. The hospital record indicated that plaintiff’s assignor was intoxicated at the time of accident and based on the record, defendant denied the claim asserting the intoxication of plaintiff’s assignor as a defense.

In affirming the judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor in the court below, the Appellate Division for the Second Department concluded that defendant was precluded from raising intoxication as a defense inasmuch as defendant denied the claim more than 30 days after its receipt. The Court based its decision on the principle that “[w]hen an insurance company fails to comply with its duty to act expeditiously in processing no-fault claims, it will be precluded from raising most defenses” (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432 [citation omitted]). The Court reasoned that by failing to do the follow-up required by 11 NYCRR former 65.15 (e) (2), which it concluded had to be “strictly construed” (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432), defendant did not act diligently in processing the claim (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 433 [citations omitted]).

The courts have consistently followed the holding in Presbyterian (see King’s Med. Supply v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50450[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Bronx Med. Servs., P.C. v Windsor Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 50885[U] [App [*3]Term,1st Dept]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 145[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50140[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

This case is not on all fours with Presbyterian or the other cases cited above. In all of those cases, when the plaintiff failed to provide the verification that had been requested, the defendant did not do any follow-up whatsoever. Here, defendant did follow up but not within the 10-day period specified in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b). While defendant certainly acted more diligently in processing the claims than the defendant in Presbyterian or the other cases cited above, it did not strictly adhere to the dictates of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), nonetheless. The court must be guided by the principle that the no-fault regulations are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Atlanta Cas. Co., 210 AD2d 210, 211 [2d Dept 1994]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]).

The clear language of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) required defendant to follow up with the plaintiff for the verification at least once in the 10-day period specified therein. This defendant clearly did not do so. The court finds that when defendant failed to follow up as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), the toll occasioned by defendant’s initial requests for verification dissipated ab initio. Thus, it necessarily follows that defendant’s denials of claim, all of which were issued more than 30 days after defendant received the claims, were untimely as a matter of law. Defendant was precluded from raising most defenses, including the defense asserted in each of its denials.

Having established that it submitted the claims setting forth the fact and the amounts of the loss sustained and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount sued for (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that judgment be entered in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $5,698.45, together with interest and attorneys’ fees as provided for under the No-Fault Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as costs and disbursements.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 9, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sanders, Grossman, Fass & Muhlstock P.C., Mineola, for plaintiff. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano LLP, Melville, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the issue presented is whether the testimony of the peer expert called by defendant at trial to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity should have been precluded on the ground that he did not prepare the peer review reports upon which defendant relied in denying the claims. The court holds that since the peer review expert, whose identity had been disclosed to plaintiff prior to trial, was limited to testifying to the facts and opinions contained in the peer review reports defendant relied upon in denying the claims, there was no basis to preclude his testimony.

Facts

Plaintiff SK Medical Services, P.C. commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to three assignors, Mamia Kashia, Zaza Kacharava and Malkhaz Gvaladze. All three assignors were allegedly injured on December 27, 2002, in the same motor vehicle accident. Each assignor appeared at plaintiff’s facility on January 21, 2003 for a “neurodiagnostic consultation” by Dr. Larisa Tsaur. On the same day, Dr. Tsaur performed essentially identical electrodiagnostic testing on each assignor. The tests included nerve conduction velocity studies and electromyography studies.

Plaintiff submitted four bills to defendant, one in the amount of $3,673.07 for services provided to Mamia Kashia, another in the same amount for services provided to Zaza Kacharava and two bills totaling $3,976.66 for services provided to Malkhaz Gvaladze. Along with each bill, plaintiff submitted a copy of the neurodiagnostic consultation report of Dr. Tsaur.

Upon receipt of the bills, defendant retained Dr. Joseph C. Cole to do a peer review for each submission. Dr. Cole prepared three peer review reports, one for each assignor, and recommended that defendant pay only for the neurodiagnostic consultations. He concluded that the extensive electrodiagnostic testing of plaintiff’s assignors, performed less than a month following the accident, was not medically necessary in light of Dr. Tsaur’s clinical findings.

In accordance with Dr. Cole’s recommendations, defendant paid plaintiff for the [*2]neurodiagnostic consultations and denied the remainder of the bills asserting lack of medical necessity as a defense. Each of defendant’s denials included a copy of the peer review report upon which it was based.

The trial of this action took place on March 2, 2006. At the outset of the trial, the parties stipulated that defendant received the NF-3 claim forms (the bills), which included Dr. Tsaur’s neurodiagnostic consultation reports, and that defendant timely denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity based on Dr. Cole’s peer review reports. The NF-3 claim forms, the neurodiagnostic consultation reports and each of defendant’s denials, which included Dr. Cole’s peer review reports, were stipulated into evidence.

At the time of trial, Dr. Cole was not available to testify. To establish its defense of lack of medical necessity, defendant called Peter Gastaldi, D.C. Plaintiff objected and moved to preclude him from testifying. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that since defendant’s denials of claim were based on Dr. Cole’s peer reviews, defendant was limited to calling Dr. Cole to establish lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff’s counsel further maintained that since defendant never exchanged a copy of Dr. Gastaldi’s peer review report or properly responded to plaintiff’s demand for expert disclosure, Dr. Gastaldi should be precluded from testifying.

Plaintiff’s demand for expert information required defendant to provide

“(a) the name and address of each and every person [defendant] expect[ed] to call as an expert witness at the time of trial of this action; (b) the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify; (c) the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is to testify; (d) the qualifications of each expert; and (e) a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.”

In response, defendant provided Dr. Gastaldi’s name and address but the only information provided as to the particulars of his expected testimony was that he would “be relied upon at trial to provide testimony as to the findings of a lack of medical necessity as set forth in the denial.”

Defendant’s counsel represented that Dr. Gastaldi never prepared a peer review report and that he would testify to the same facts and opinions as set forth in Dr. Cole’s reports. Defendant therefore maintained that plaintiff had no legitimate argument that it would be prejudiced if Dr. Gastaldi were allowed to testify.

The court reserved decision on the motion and permitted Dr. Gastaldi to testify. The court precluded him, however, from testifying to facts or opinions that were not set forth in Dr. Cole’s reports. The court agreed to strike his testimony if plaintiff’s motion were granted.

Discussion

After careful consideration, the court finds that there was no legitimate basis to preclude Dr. Gastaldi from testifying. Each of defendant’s denials of claim, which asserted lack of medical necessity as a defense, was timely issued (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), contained the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2d Dept 2004]), and, with the inclusion of the peer review report upon which it was based, “promptly apprise[d] the claimant[s] with a high degree of specificity of the ground . . . on which [it was] predicated” (General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]; see also, Nyack Hosp., 11 AD3d at 664 [2d Dept 2004]; Keith v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 118 AD2d 151, 153 [2d Dept 1986]). Defendant therefore preserved its right to defend the claims at trial on the [*3]ground of lack of medical necessity for the reasons stated in Dr. Cole’s peer review reports.

While it is true that an insurer may not, after repudiating liability, assert new grounds for its refusal to pay a claim (Han-Ki Lee v American Tr. Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 713, 714 [2003]; Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 836 [1981]) and must “stand or fall upon the defense upon which it based its refusal to pay” (Beckley v Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 190, 194 [1957]; see also, King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 863, 865 [1995]), permitting Dr. Gastaldi to testify did not violate these principles since Dr. Gastaldi was not permitted to assert any new ground justifying defendant’s refusal to pay the claims. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, there is no requirement in the no-fault regulations, or under common law, requiring an insurer to exchange a copy of the report of a peer review expert it intends to call at trial. Although 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (b) (4) requires an insurer upon written demand to provide an applicant, the applicant’s attorney or the applicant’s treating physician with a copy of a peer review report upon which its denial is based, nothing contained in this regulation, nor in any other regulation promulgated under the No-Fault Law, suggests that an insurer is limited to calling the peer expert whose report was exchanged as its expert witness at trial. No plausible argument has been put forth why this court should impose such a limitation. If an insurer wishes to elicit expert testimony at trial to establish the factual basis of a properly asserted defense, it must simply comply with the rules pertaining to expert disclosure.

In this case, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, defendant sufficiently complied with plaintiff’s demand for expert disclosure. In its response, defendant identified Dr. Gastaldi as a potential expert and indicated that he would “be relied upon at trial to provide testimony as to the findings of a lack of medical necessity as set forth in the denial[s].” As stated above, each of defendant’s denials included the report of Dr. Cole upon which it was based, and Dr. Gastaldi was limited to testifying to the facts and opinions contained therein. Accordingly, defendant’s expert disclosure sufficiently set forth “the substance of the facts and opinions on which” the expert was expected to testify (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; see, Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 252 AD2d 946, 946-947 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 817 [1998]) and “demonstrable prejudice or surprise” to the plaintiff had not been shown (Rook v 60 Key Ctr., 239 AD2d 926, 927 [1997]).

For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to preclude is denied.

The court finds Dr. Gastaldi to be a credible witness. His testimony did not go beyond the facts and opinions contained in Dr. Cole’s reports. He gave persuasive testimony that the extensive testing performed on each of plaintiff’s assignors on January 21, 2003 was not medically necessary in light of Dr. Tsaur’s clinical findings. The court credits his testimony in all respects. No witnesses were called by the plaintiff to rebut his testimony. The court therefore finds that defendant established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the testing at issue was not medically necessary.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint.