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.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

46907/2005

Sylvia G. Ash, J.

Plaintiff, a health care provider, rendered medical services to the assignors in connection with injuries sustained as a result of separate automobile accidents that occurred in September of 2003. At the time of the alleged accidents, Defendant was the first-party no-fault carrier responsible for payment of any claims properly submitted. Plaintiff brought this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for the medical services rendered to its assignors. A trial on this matter was conducted jointly.^[FN1]. The trial commenced on February 6, 2006 and was heard on consecutive days until its conclusion on February 9, 2006. At issue as to assignor Reggie Delmar, is $484.44. At issue as to assignor Mario Rodriguez is $968.88, for a total of $1,453.32. Based on the credible evidence adduced at trial this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In accordance with the applicable no-fault rules, Plaintiff submitted the required no-fault claim forms indicating the fact and amount of the loss sustained for each of its assignors, and Defendant timely denied said claims based on the fact that the alleged automobile accidents were not covered.^[FN2]. For each of its assignors Plaintiff submitted claims for the following services, Inclinometry Range of Motion procedures (code 95851), and Manual Muscle Testing procedures (code 95831). Defendant denied said claims. As a basis for its denial of each of these claims Defendant asserted two reasons. First, for the Inclinometry Range of motion procedures, Defendant contends that the “procedure is not listed in the NY state fee schedule for this provider specialty. If reported with an evaluation and management service, this procedure is [*2]inclusive.” Second, for the Manual Muscle Testing procedures, Defendant contends the “procedures referenced by the provider’s office were used more than what is normally expected per visit.” (See Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence, Defendant’s denial of claim for each assignor respectively).

In light of the parties stipulating to Plaintiff’s prima facie case, and Defendant’s timely denial of the claims submitted, the only remaining issue for this Court to determine is whether the Defendant met its burden by demonstrating that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the claims submitted based on the fact that the procedures were not listed in the fee schedule for the provider, and based on the fact that the procedures were used more than what is expected per visit.

To contain the cost of providing medical services to patients treated under New York’s No-Fault law, the state legislature set limits on the fees health care providers may charge patients who sustain injuries in the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The legislature controlled costs by incorporating into the no-fault scheme the fee schedules established by the Worker’s Compensation Board for industrial accidents. Worker’s Compensation fee schedules were divided into various sections, including Medicine, Physical Therapy, Anesthesia, Surgery, Radiology, and Pathology in the medical fee schedule. Each of these sections lists a variety of medical procedures and assigns to each procedure a number known as a Current Procedural Terminology Registry Code (hereinafter “CPT code”). Each procedure listed in the fee schedule is assigned a number representing its “unit value.” To determine the maximum fee a provider may charge for any given procedure, the unit value assigned to that procedure is multiplied by a dollar amount conversion factor. Conversion factors are provider specific. Hence, the conversion factors apply only t the category of health care provider and type of treatment for which they were established (see Introna v. Allstate Insurance Co., 890 F.Supp.161).

The Worker’s Compensation fee schedules are adjusted by the superintendent of the Insurance Department (see Insurance Law §5108). One adjustment made by the superintendent is for health services not set out in the schedules. When a charge for a reimbursable service has not been scheduled by the superintendent, although a fee schedule has been set for the profession of the provider, then the provider shall establish a fee or unit value consistent with other fees or unit values for comparable procedures shown in such schedule subject to review by the insurer (see 11 NYCRR 68.6(a); Studin v. Allstate Insurance Co, 152 Misc 2d 221).

During trial in the instant matter, Plaintiff submitted bills indicating that, Inclinometry Range of Motion procedures (CPT code 95851), and Manual Muscle Testing procedures (CPT code 95831), were performed on the assignors. In its post-trial memorandum of law on this issue, Plaintiff demonstrated by using a chart, the precise method for calculating the charges for the expenses. Specifically, Plaintiff indicated that it did in fact locate the procedures that were performed on the assignors within the Worker’s Compensation schedule, under CPT codes, 95851 and 95831. Plaintiff using the “comparable procedures” method then billed the insurer at a rate comparable for a physical therapists rate for providing these services. Defendant failed to [*3]introduce any evidence on this issue at trial or in its post-trial memorandum of law to establish that the services rendered were in fact not scheduled services, or as the defendant stated in its denial “…not listed in the NY state fee schedule for this provider specialty.”

In addition to reviewing the record and the post-trial memoranda of the parties, the Court conducted an investigation of the fee schedule. Both of the above-referenced procedures listed in the bills submitted by the Plaintiff in this case were in fact listed in the schedule (see Worker’s Compensation Board Fee Schedule of medicine Fees, Page 32). Pursuant to the chart utilized by Plaintiff in its post-trial memorandum of law, the court is satisfied that Plaintiff billed the insurer at the appropriate physical therapist rate of the services rendered, and as such, is entitled to recovery for the expenses. Defendant offered no proof to the contrary, and as such, has failed to maintain this defense.

The Court will now address Defendant’s contention that the “procedures referenced by the provider’s office were used more than what is normally expected per visit,” (see Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence, Defendant’s denial of claim for each assignor respectively). It is the Court’s position that this defense amounts to one of lack of medical necessity. It is well settled that where Defendant’s timely denial raises the lack of medical necessity defense but fails to support same with an Independent Medical exam (hereinafter “IME”), a peer review, an IME report, or other supporting documentation that is factually sufficient and non-conclusory, this defense will fail )Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43 [App Term 2d & 11th Jud Dists. 2004]. As such, Defendant failed to preserve this defense for trial. Assuming arguendo Defendant had preserved this defense for trial, Defendant failed to call any expert witnesses at trial to testify regarding this issue. Nor did Defendant attempt to introduce any documents into evidence regarding this issue. As such, Defendant’s argument fails in its entirety as there is absolutely no basis in the record upon which the Court could make the determination that the procedures referenced by the Plaintiff in its claim forms were “..more than what is normally expected per visit” (see Joint exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence, Defendant’s denial of claim for each assignor respectively).

Based on the foregoing, judgment is to be entered in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,453.32, plus statutory interest and reasonable attorney fees.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

DATED:Brooklyn, NY

May 30, 2006

_____________________________

SYLVIA G. ASH

JUDGE, CIVIL COURT

Footnotes

Footnote 1: This matter was tried jointly with index numbers 46906/05, 46927/05, 46933/05, and 48354/05.

Footnote 2:The parties stipulated on the record to Plaintiff’s prima facie case and that Defendant issued timely denials. [*4]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

96268 KCV 2004

Delores J. Thomas, J.

In the instant action plaintiff, a medical supplies provider, sues to recover $2,882.85 for medical supplies provided to its assignor Barry Galleh for injuries stemming from an auto accident on March 3, 2004.

At trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and defendant’s timely denial of claim. The parties further agreed that the only issue for trial would be defendant’s defense of lack of medical necessity. The parties also stipulated the following documents into evidence:

Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

1A – Invoice dated May 20, 2002 for $1,532.85

1B – Invoice dated April 10, 2004 for $ 1,350.00

2A – Prescription from Oleg Barshay, D.C. dated March 5, 2004

2B – Prescription from Oleg Barshay D.C. dated April 19, 2004

3 – April 13, 2004 chiropractic report from Oleg Barshay for Barry Galleh

Defendant’s Exhibits:

A1 – NF10 dated May 10, 2004

A2 – NF10 dated June 1, 2004

B1 – Peer Review dated May 5, 2004

B2 – Peer Review dated May 28, 2004

The supplies at issue were: cervical pillow, Philadelphia tracheotomy cervical collar, TLSO Dorso-lumbar surgical supply, lumbar cushion, bed board, egg crate mattress, thermophone, EMS Unit, EMS accessory Kit, EMS belt, massage and an infra-red heating lamp (Exhibit 1A & 1B).

At trial, defendant called Ronald A. Csillag, a doctor of chiropractic [“D.C.”] the person who performed the per review. Dr. Csillag was qualified without objection as an expert in the practice of chiropractics. Dr. Csillag testified that the cervical pillow prescribed for the assignor is usually prescribed for injuries which are chronic in nature. He described the assignor’s injury as being acute and opined that the pillow was not needed and that the patient could have simply been instructed to roll up a towel and use it with the same benefit. In the peer review report, Dr. Csillag indicated that the effectiveness of cervical pillows in whiplash associated disorders is inconclusive and cites as authority several publications, (i.e. Whiplash Associated Disorders, [*2]Spine 1995, 20 (85); 25-73s Clinical Evidence BMJ Publishing Group, page 232-2003).

With regards to the lumbosacral belt and cervical collar, Dr. Csillag testified and wrote in the peer review report that these supplies were unnecessary because these devices work through immobilization and this type of support is not consistent with the trend in the management of lumbar sprains. He also wrote and testified that current scientific research documents the importance of early range of motion as mobility enhances recovery (see Defendant’s Exhibit B-1, pg. 4). Dr. Csillag cited the text, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: State of the Art Reviews: Vol. 9(3) October 1995 as supporting authority(Id.). Dr. Csillag further testified that many of the medical supplies were unnecessary because there was no indication from the treating doctor how to use them or to what areas to apply the device. He further opined that the patient was undergoing physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, message therapy and adjunctive therapy and that the massager, infrared heating lamps, EMS Unit and associated EMS equipment represented a duplication of services.

Plaintiff did not call a witness but as indicated the report of Dr. Barshay was admitted into evidence as Plaintiff Exhibit 3. The Initial Diagnosis portion of the report indicates:

1. Traumatic cervical sprain/strain with cervical myofascitis and possible radicular involvement, complicated by C4-C5 and C5-C6 bulging disc (MRI finding).

2. Traumatic Lumbar sprain/strain with intermittent radiating sciatic neuralgia, concomitant with Lumbar myofascitis (MRI finding pending).

3. Post traumatic cervicogenic headaches.

4. Head and right knee contusion.

5. Multiple intersegmental functional dysarthroses of the cervical thoracic and lumbar vertebral motor units.

The report also list a patient management plan, to wit: “The treatment in this case was directed toward conservative chiropractic management. This consisted of specific vertebral adjustments to correct functional dysarthroses and adjunctive therapy in the form of manual intersegmental traction. To enhance recovery, manual massage therapy and acupuncture by a licensed therapist was incorporated into the treatment plan. The frequency of treatments is 2-3 times a week. The patient was also advised to wear an orthopedic lumbosacral support and cervical collar to minimize pain and prevent a re-injury. A TENS unit was given to the patient and after a two week trial was proven to be effective for pain management.”

Since the only issue for trial was whether the supplies provided to the assignor were medically necessary, defendant bore the burden of proof on this issue (A.R. Medical Art. P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 1057 [A][Civ. Ct., Kings Co. 2006]; CityWide Social Work & Psychological Servs. v. Travelers Indem. Co. 3 Misc 3d 608 [Civ. Ct., Kings Co., 2004]; Elm Medical P.C. v. American Home Assurance Co., 2003 NY Slip Op. 51357 [U], 2003 WL 22471156 [Civ. Ct., Kings Co., 2003]; Fifth Ave. Pain Control Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 196 Misc 2d 801 [Civ. Ct., Queens Co., 2003]).

A no-fault insurer defending a denial of first party benefits on the ground that the billed for services or equipment/supplies were not “medically necessary” must show that the services or supplies/equipment provided were inconsistent with generally accepted medical/professional practices. The opinion of the insurer’s expert, standing alone, is insufficient to carry the insurer’s burden of proving that the services or supplies/equipment were not “medically necessary”

[*3](CityWide Social Work & Psychological Servs. v. Travelers Indem. Co. , supra at 609; Ultimate Med. Supplies v. Lancer Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 1002 [A] [Civ. Ct., Kings. Co. 2004]).

In United Medical Supplies v. Lancer Ins. Co., supra, plaintiff had supplied its assignor with certain medical equipment (i.e. TENS Unit, LSO, etc) pursuant to a prescription. Defendant denied payment based upon a peer review. At trial, the peer review doctor, Dr. Moshkovski, testified that based upon her experience none of the prescribed durable medical equipment was necessary. She cited no authority other than her own experience. Judge Alice Fisher Rubin found it clear that Dr. Moshkovski admitted to never having prescribed any of the subject medical equipment with the sole exception of ice packs, on no basis other than her own opinion. Thus, the court held that such an opinion was biased against the prescribing doctor so as to make the peer review a nullity and not credible.

The instant case is at opposite with the facts of United Medical Supplies v. Lancer Ins. Co. supra. Here Dr. Csillag opinion as to whether the various medical supplies were necessary was based not only upon his experience but based upon medical authority cited in the peer review reports (Defendant’s Exhibit B, page 4). Dr. Csillag wrote in his report and testified that the type of lumbar support prescribed was no longer used to manage lumar sprains because it immobilized that portion of the body and the current trend in treatment was to allow mobility because mobilization fostered recovery. Dr. Csillag also testified that the massager, infrared heating lamp, EMS unit and associated EMS equipment was a duplication of services available and provided through the physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, message therapy and adjunctive therapy that the assignor was to have begun as of the April 13, 2004 report.

Considering the testimony of Dr. Csillag at trial coupled with the contents of the peer review reports of May 5, 2004 (Defendant’s Exhibit B1) and May 28, 2004 (Defendant’s Exhibit B2) the Court finds defendant has proven its defense that the supplies were not medically necessary. The burden now shifts to plaintiff to refute defendant’s evidence.

As previously indicated, plaintiff did not call a doctor but relied upon its cross examination of Dr. Csillag and the report of Dr. Barshay. It is undisputed that a chiropractor may prescribe the supplies which are the basis of this litigation (ABC Med. Mgt. v, GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 181 [Civ. Ct., Queens Co., 2003]) and such may be justified in light of the patient’s overall condition (Id); herein, however, there is no evidence in the record to refute defendant’s expert witness’ testimony (cf A.R. Med. v. State Farm, supra) and to explain why the medical supplies were necessary.

In A.R. Med. v. State Farm, supra plaintiff also did not call the treating doctor; however, in that case the treating doctor had issued a Letter of Medical Necessity, which was stipulated into evidence, in which he clearly set forth the reasoning and purpose for the conduction of the NCV/EMG test that were at issue.

The April 13, 2004 report from Dr. Barshay merely sets forth what the finding of the patient’s examination were, the diagnosis, a management(treatment) plan and a prognosis. This Court has no way of knowing why these supplies were prescribed. Viewing Dr. Barshay’s report (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3), the only portion that may be read as giving any indication of why the supplies were prescribed appears in the Patient Management section where Dr. Barshay indicated, “The patient was also advised to wear an orthopedic lumbosacral support and cervical collar to minimize pain and prevent a re-injury.” In light of the reasoning set forth in the peer [*4]review and the testimony at trial, plaintiff evidence in rebuttal is insufficient to prove medical necessity for the supplies.

Accordingly, judgment for defendant, the summons and complaint are dismissed.

Defendant shall serve a copy of this decision/order with Notice of Entry upon the appropriate clerk and the plaintiff within 15 days after receipt.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

DATED: May 16, 2006

Brooklyn, New York

DELORES J. THOMAS

Judge Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

KCV29614/2005

Plaintiff by Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grosssman, Fass Muhlstock & Newwirth

Defendant by Nicolini, Paradise, Ferretti & Sabella

Richard Velasquez, J.

In this action, plaintiff, Universal Open MRI of the Bronx, PC, seeks to recover first-party no-fault benefits in the amount of $1,842.26 from defendant State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. for health care services rendered to its assignor(s) who were allegedly injured in an automobile accident. Defendant denied plaintiff’s claims on the basis that the alleged injuries “do not arise out of an insured incident.” The trial was held before this Court on February 14, 2006. At the start of the trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and defendant’s denial based on the ground of lack of coverage due to no true accident. Defendant State Farm presented one witness, State Farm Special Investigative Unit (SIU) investigator Don Willsey. Plaintiff did not present any witnesses.

The trial then proceeded on defendant’s defense of lack of coverage. SIU investigator Willsey testified that after receiving the file on Mr. Julio Garcia, assignor herein, he performed a preliminary investigation of the claim and tried to contact the parties involved in the alleged accident, including the insured in this case and the assignor, Mr. Garcia, with no success. In addition, he testified that as part of his preliminary investigation, he reviewed the police accident report and intended to interview the police officer who arrived at the scene, but did not as someone from his office had previously interviewed said officer. Mr. Willsey also testified that as part of his investigation, he obtained information from the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) which serves as a clearing house for data from insurance companies concerning claims made against insurance policies, and State Farm’s Frequency Tracking System, an internal database of all claims made against State Farm policies. As for State Farm’s Frequency Tracking System, he testified that data from prior losses may be retrieved using an individual’s name, social security number, address, date of birth, and vehicle identification number (VIN), to determine any connection between the parties involved in the current claim with prior claims against State Farm. His research concluded that: “the owner of claimant vehicle had a prior claim history; owner and driver of the vehicle were not insured.”

Plaintiff objected to defendant offering this information into evidence and, after voir dire of Mr. Willsey, moved to preclude this testimony on several grounds including [*2]hearsay. This Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor on the hearsay objection to the admittance into evidence of Frequency Tracking System results. Mr. Willsey further testified that he received the file for investigation “shortly” after the alleged accident, sometime in September or October of 2002. When cross-examined about the gap in time (approximately four months) between the incident in question and his receipt of the Garcia file, he stated that a prior investigator had been assigned to the case.

Mr. Willsey also testified that he attempted to interview the parties involved in the incident, but was unable to do so. Having had no success in interviewing the parties, Mr. Willsey recommended to his attorney that Examinations Under Oath (EUO) be scheduled for the parties involved in the incident. According to Mr. Willsey, none of the parties involved in the alleged accident appeared for EUO’s.

Based on all of these factors together with the fact that the insured’s vehicle was not at the accident scene at the time the police arrived, Mr. Willsey determined that the accident was staged and therefore it was not a covered accident. Thus, he recommended the subject claim be denied.

DISCUSSION

Generally, an insured seeking to recover for a loss under an insurance policy has the burden of proving that a loss occurred and also that the loss was a covered event within the terms of the policy. A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 822, 795 NYS2d 843 [Civ. Ct. Kings County 2005] citing Gongolewski v. Travelers Ins. Co., 252 AD2d 569, 675 NYS2d 299 [2d Dept. 1998]. Whatever the risk or loss covered, it has long been the insured’s burden to prove coverage under the policy. A.B. Medical Services, id. at 825. In an action for first-party no-fault benefits, an insured’s proof is relatively simple a properly completed claim by the provider of medical services or supplies makes out a prima facie showing of coverage. Amaze Medical Supply Inc., v. Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128 (A), 754 NYS2d 918, 2003 NY Slip. Op. 51701[U][App. Term, 2d and 11th Jud. Dists.]. As in the related area of “medical necessity”, the plaintiff’s prima facie showing establishes a “presumption of coverage”. A.B. Medical Services, id at 825. Once the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the burden of explanation or of “going forward with the case” falls upon the defendant. Mount Sinai Hosp. V. Triboro, 263 AD2d 11, 699 NYS2d 77 [2d Dept., 1999].

No-fault insurance policies cover only vehicular accidents. A deliberate collision is not a covered accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. V. Laguerre, 305 AD2nd490, 759 NYS2nd 531 [2nd Dept.2003]; Allstate Insurance Co.v. Massre, 14 AD3rd 610, 789 NYS2d 206 [2nd Dept. 2005]. When a collision is an intentional act, not an accident, there is no coverage “regardless of whether the intentional collision was motivated by fraud or malice.” Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Shaulskaya, 302 AD2nd 522, 523, 756 NYS2nd 79 [2nd Dept. 2003].

Standard of Proof in Summary Judgment Context

The law is well settled in a no-fault summary judgment context that the insurer need only demonstrate to the court that it had a “founded belief” that the alleged accident was intentionally caused in order to survive a summary judgment motion by plaintiff-provider. Amaze Medical Supply Inc. V. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 10 Misc 3d 127(A), 809 NYS2d 480 (Table), 2005 WL 3115289 citing Central Gen. Hosp. V. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NYS2d 195, 199 (1997). However, defendant-insurer’s founded belief is usually [*3]not enough to obtain judgment on its own. To win on its summary judgment motion, defendant must make a prima facie “lack of coverage” showing and if plaintiff does not come forward to rebut defendant-insurer wins. Central Gen. Hosp., id at 199; A.B.Medical Services, PLLC, supra at 825. In addition, this Court recognizes that for the purposes of summary judgment motions, parties are permitted, within limits, to rely on otherwise inadmissible information. Zuilkowski v. Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company, 114 AD2d 453, 494 NYS2d 363 [1985]. However, what is admissible at this stage of litigation will not necessarily be admissible at trial.

Standard of Proof at Trial

At trial, the question remains just how much “admissible evidence” the defendant-insurer must produce to satisfy its evidentiary burden where nonpayment of a no-fault claim is based on a collision being a non-covered event. The second question concerning this Court is whether the elements of fraud must be proved where a claim has been denied based on 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (e)(2) “circumstances of the accident not covered by no-fault”.

There have been several recent well-reasoned decisions regarding the standards of proof for “fraud” or “no true accident”, as well as a discussion of whether allegations of fraud are necessary in the context of a no-fault denial based on “no true accident”. Three of these decisions have been particularly helpful in analyzing the complexities involved in no-fault cases where the defense against payment of claims is lack of coverage based on allegations of fraud or that the collision was intentionally caused: A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra ; JSI Expert Service v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 1009(A), 801 NYS2d 235 [Civ. Ct., Kings County 2005]; and V.S. Medical Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 11 Misc 3d 334, 2006 WL 16289 [Civ. Ct., Kings County 2006]. After thorough review and consideration of each of these opinions, this Court has decided that it must determine first whether the tort of common law fraud must be proved where a denial is based on 11 NYCRR§65-3.8(e)(2) “circumstance of the accident not covered by no-fault”; and second, the standard of proof for a staged accident, or “no true accident”.

Should Fraud be Litigated in a No-Fault Trial?

In JSI Expert Service v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra , the defense raised for nonpayment of claims was fraud.^[FN1] There, citing Rudman v. Cowles Communications, 30 NY2d 1 (1972), Judge Bailey-Schiffman found that “proof of fraud must be made by clear and convincing evidence.” Indeed, the standard of proof for the tort of common law fraud has long been viewed as requiring proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence as will be discussed below. This Court is concerned, however, that proving the elements of common law fraud by clear and convincing evidence where nonpayment of a no-fault claim is based on a collision being an intentional act, is not what 11 NYCRR §65-3.8 envisioned.

The intent of the no-fault law as found at 70A NY Jur.2d Insurance § 1774 (updated March 2006) is as follows:

The purposes of this statute were to remove a vast majority of claims arising from [*4]vehicular accidents from the sphere of common-law tort litigation, and to establish a quick, sure and efficient system for obtaining compensation for economic loss suffered as a result of such accidents. [emphasis added].

Our Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of the No-Fault law and in so doing stated, inter alia: …”it was concluded in all reports that the tort system was plagued by long delays in claim payment. The tort system places an inordinate strain on the State’s court systems and judicial resources. The No-Fault law sought to cure these ills by guaranteeing prompt and full compensation for economic losses…and to reduce the long delays experienced under judicial procedures and to lessen the burden on our State Courts.” Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 378 NYS2d 1, 340 NE2d 444 [1975].

A review of the elements of the tort of common law fraud demonstrates why proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence in a no-fault trial is inconsistent with the purposes of No-Fault law, and why it is not necessary to allege fraud as a defense for refusal to pay a no-fault claim.

To sustain a cause of action based on actual fraud, the plaintiff had to establish that (1) the defendant made material representations that were false, (2) the defendant knew the representations were false and made them with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant’s representations, and (4) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s representations. Cerbanono v.Price, 7 AD3d 479, 775 NYS2d 585 [2d Dept. 2004]. (See also, Giurdanella v. Giurdanella, 226 AD2d 342, 640 NYS2d 211; Matter of Garvin, 210 AD2d 332, 620 NYS2d 400).

Clearly, proving these elements (and proving them by clear and convincing evidence) will consume a significant amount of trial time and could be very costly.

Clear and Convincing Standard vs. Preponderance of the Credible Evidence

While common law fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as Judge Bailey-Schiffman found in JSI Expert Service, the standard common to most civil cases is a preponderance of the credible evidence. What, then, distinguishes civil cases where a preponderance of the credible evidence standard of proof is sufficient, and those where the issue to be decided must meet the clear and convincing standard?

The case of In the Matter of Father Philip K. Eichner v. Dillon, 73 AD2d 431, 426 NYS2d 517 [2d Dept. 1980] sheds light on the distinction between the two types of civil cases. In Eichner, a priest brought a proceeding to have a religious brother (in a chronic vegetative state) declared incompetent, and to obtain judicial approval for withdrawal of extraordinary life-sustaining measure consisting of a respirator. The Eichner court grappled with the standard of proof necessary to determine whether the Priest, Eichner, had the requisite legal authority to make the decision that life-support should be removed from the religious brother. There the court reasoned:

[W]e cannot abide by the suggestion that a preponderance of the credible evidence’ standard, common to most civil proceedings, would be sufficient here. Rather we elect the [*5]middle tier standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence. …[T]his standard is appropriate where the interests at stake are deemed to be more substantial than mere loss of money.’ Similarly, the clear, unequivocal and convincing standard of proof [is used] to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases. Id. at 523.

Eichner cites to examples of cases where “the clear and convincing evidence” standard is utilized only where the “interests at stake” are deemed more significant than ordinary”: reformation of a contract (Ross v. Food Specialities, 6 NY2d 336, 189 NYS2d 857, 160 NE2d 618); a filiation proceeding (Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of NY v. Ryan, 238 App. Div. 607, 265 NYS 286); an action based upon a claim against a deceased, (Matter of Cady, 211 App. Div. 373, 207 NYS 385); in deportation proceedings (Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 385 US 278, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362); and for a claim of fraud (United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 US 2224, 17 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed. 144).

No-Fault Regulation 11NYCRR 65-3.8(e)(2)

No-fault regulations provide for a denial of a claim for the following reasons:

(1) no coverage on the date of accident;

(2) circumstances of the accident not covered by no-fault; or

(3) statutory exclusions pursuant to section 5103(b) of the insurance law. Id. at 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (e).(emphasis added)

If an insurer has a “founded belief” that the alleged accident was not a true accident, it can deny the claim based on 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(e)(2). At trial, the insurer must show, through admissible evidence, facts and circumstances leading a trier of fact to conclude that more likely than not, the circumstances of the collision are not covered by no-fault. If this threshold is reached, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defendant’s case. Nowhere in the no-fault statute or regulations is there a requirement that in order to prevail on denial of a claim pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(e), common law fraud must be proved. In fact, as Judge Jack Battaglia in A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance company, supra , and Judge Arlene Bluth in V.S. Medical Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance Company, supra , point out: “Damages resulting from a deliberate collision are not covered by no-fault insurance regardless of the existence of fraudulent motivation.” V.S. Medical Services, Id. At 3. Judge Bluth goes on to state: “Put another way, the no-fault policy only covers accidents; it does not cover deliberate incidents. It does not matter whether the incident was a deliberate mugging, an attempted murder, a product of road rage, or a cold calculated scheme to defraud the insurance company. If it was deliberate, it is not a covered incident under the no-fault policy.”

While our appellate courts commonly invoke the term “fraud” when discussing the defense of “staged accident”, it is a “lack of coverage” they are discussing not necessarily fraud. It seems to make no difference why the incident occurred. If it were made to happen, then it is not an accident and therefore not a covered accident. See State Farm V. Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490, 491, 759 NYS2d 531 [2d Dept. 2003].

In the instant matter, defendant contends that the evidentiary burden for defeating a summary judgment motion “founded belief” (incident was staged) should apply in a trial context. This Court disagrees. As mentioned earlier, to win on its own summary [*6]judgment motion, defendant must make a prima facie “lack of coverage” showing and if plaintiff does not go forward to rebut, then summary judgment is granted to defendant-insurer. Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group of Ins. Co.,90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997].. Moreover, this court is concerned that “fact or founded belief” as the evidentiary burden in no true accident cases contravenes the intent of the No-Fault insurance law. Such a minimal showing would allow routine denial of claims by insurers and open the floodgates to permit insurers who have not timely denied a claim to use a “no true accident” defense (understanding that the standard of proof is minimal) and defeat the primary purposes of the no fault law.

As far as the shifting burdens of proof in a no-fault staged accident or intentional collision case, Judge Jack Battaglia provides an excellent analysis in A.B. Medical Services. The bottom line is that in a “staged accident” case, the defendant has the burden of “coming forward” with proof in admissible form that a staged accident occurred; The plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion and rebutting defendant’s evidence, or the plaintiff “succumbs”. This Court finds that the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”, often defined as the existence of the “fact” being more probable than its non-existence. After all the evidence has been presented, the trier of fact must decide whether the evidence preponderates in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.

CONCLUSION

In this trial, defendant failed to come forward with proof in “admissible form” to establish the “fact” or the evidentiary “foundation” to buttress its belief that the injuries alleged by the assignor did not arise from an insured accident. Defendant failed to adduce sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of coverage that attaches to the plaintiff’s properly completed claim form.

While SUI investigator Willsey’s testimony is entitled to some weight (see Travelers Indemnity Co. V. Morales, 188 AD2d 350, 351, 591 NYS2d 27 [1st. Dept. 1992], it is clear to this Court that much of the information that SUI investigator Willsey relied upon in his testimony was hearsay and was not admissible due to the lack of appropriate foundation. The defendant sought to introduce information obtained from the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) in establishing its case of intentional collision, but failed to lay any foundation or make any showing that would support the admissibility of this information.

In addition, Mr. Willsey testified that as part of his investigation, he utilized State Farm’s Frequency Tracking System to determine any prior loss history of any of the parties and/or any of the vehicles involved in the present incident. His search revealed that the owner of claimant vehicle had a prior claim history with State Farm and that the owner and driver were not insured. Again, this Court concluded that without the requisite foundation, this information is inadmissible hearsay.

Defendant also asserts an inference of intentional collision should be made by the alleged failure to cooperate by the assignor and /or other parties involved in this incident and the fact that the insured vehicle was not at the scene of the accident at the time police arrived. The fact that the vehicle was not at the scene of the accident is not determinative of anything. Even though defendant-insurer may wish to use failure to cooperate as one indicia of “no true accident” instead of as a defense, it did not offer any admissible evidence as to plaintiff’s assignors’ failure to cooperate.

Based upon the testimony at trial and the acts discussed above, this Court [*7]concludes that the defendant has failed to come forward with evidence of a staged accident or that the loss giving rise to this action was intentional, and thus the burden of persuasion was never shifted to plaintiff. Accordingly, judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,842.26, together with statutory interest and attorney’s fees. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: May 11, 2006 ________________________________

RICHARD VELASQUEZ, J.C.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:“Defendant denied plaintiff’s claims on the basis that [w]e do not provide coverage for any insured’ who has made fraudulent statements or engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with the accident or loss for which coverage is sought under this policy.'” JSI Expert Service, id at 237.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

6195/2005

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

Upon the foregoing papers the within motion and cross-motion are decided as follows:

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5101 et seq. to recover $3,673.07 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits, as well as statutory interest and attorney’s fees, for medical services provided to its assignor. Defendant now moves for an order inter alia striking plaintiff ‘s complaint due to its failure to provide discovery. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment.

In support of its motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint, defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff has not complied with various discovery demands which were served on June 22, 2005. The demands included interrogatories, a notice of examination before trial, a request for expert disclosure, a demand for party statements and a notice for discovery and inspection. Several of the demands sought information regarding plaintiff’s corporate structure and licensing status, and others sought information concerning whether the physicians who treated plaintiff’s assignor were plaintiff’s employees or independent contractors.

Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. The papers [*2]submitted by the plaintiff established that it submitted the claims, setting forth the fact and the amounts of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue. Plaintiff correctly asserts that its submissions established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment ( 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]). Plaintiff maintains that to withstand the cross-motion, it was incumbent upon the defendant to submit competent proof raising a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v. Prospect Park Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]) and that pending a determination of the cross-motion, defendant’s motion to strike the complaint should be stayed pursuant to CPLR 3212, which in pertinent part, provides: “Service of a notice of motion under CPLR 3211, 3212, or section 3213 stays disclosure until a determination of the motion unless the court orders otherwise.” Significantly, there is no indication in either defendant’s or plaintiff’s papers that plaintiff raised timely objections to defendant’s interrogatories in accordance with CPLR 3133 or timely objections to defendant’s other various demands pursuant to CPLR 3122.

In opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, defendant maintained that there are triable issue of fact as to whether the injuries for which plaintiff’s assignor received treatment were causally related to the motor vehicle accident underlying the claims. Defendant asserted this defense in its denial of claim dated August 6, 2003 wherein defendant acknowledged having received the claims on May 5, 2005. Defendant’s denial was therefore untimely as a matter of law. Although defendant’s untimely denial did not preclude the defendant from raising this defense (see, Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-19 [1999] ), for the reasons set forth below, the court need not address whether defendant’s submissions raised a triable issue of fact.

Discussion:

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005], the Court of Appeals held that an insurer may withhold payment of a first-party no-fault claim “for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims.” In so holding the Court noted that Business Corporation Law § 1507 provides, “A professional service corporation may issue shares only to individuals who are authorized by law to practice in this state a profession which such corporation is authorized to practice. . .” (id. at 319 n. 1) and that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16(a)(12), “A provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102(a)(1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement. . .” (id. at n. 2). The Court concluded that a medical corporation that is owned or controlled by non-physicians violates these provisions and therefore can not recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits (id. at 320).

Although the Mallela court did not squarely address the issue of whether an insurer ‘s untimely denial of a claim precludes it from asserting the defense that a plaintiff medical corporation was a fraudulently incorporated, in A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op. 26068[App. Term, 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists.] the court held that an insurer may assert the defense even though it was not asserted in a timely denial of claim. The court in A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., supra., further held that where an insured [*3]served demands for discovery seeking information concerning whether the plaintiff medical corporation was a fraudulently licensed (i.e. – information regarding corporate structure and licensing status), which were not palpably improper or privileged and which were not objected to in accordance with CPLR 3122, the insurer was entitled to the discovery (id.) and that until such discovery was provided, a motion for summary judgment made by the plaintiff should be denied as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) (id.). Finally, the court held that the insurer’s discovery demands, to the extent they seek information regarding defenses that the insurer was precluded from raising due to its failure to timely deny the claim, were palpably improper, and that the plaintiff did not have to comply with such demands regardless of whether they were timely objected to (id.).

In accordance with A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., supra., this Court finds that defendant is entitled to compliance with its various discovery demands to the extent they seek information regarding plaintiff’s corporate structure and licensing status, and that until such discovery is provided, plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary must be denied as premature.The court further finds that the holding in A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. necessarily requires that plaintiff provide responses to defendant’s discovery demands to the extent they seek information regarding other defenses that the defendant is not precluded from raising due to the untimely denial of the claim. These defenses include the defense that a billing provider is ineligible to recover assigned first-party benefits for treatment performed by an independent contractor (see Rockaway Blvd. Medical P.C. v. Progressive Ins., 9 Misc 3d 52 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2005]; A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 132(A), 801 N.Y.S.2d 776 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2005]) and any defense to coverage, including but not limited to the defense that the injuries for which treatment was provided were not causally related to the accident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-19 [1999]) and the defense that the collision underlying the claim was a staged event in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme (see Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199; Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v. Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]; A .B. Med. Servs. v. CNA Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 138[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50265[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists.]. There is no logical reason to distinguish an insurer’s entitlement to discovery regarding these non-waivable defenses and the type of defenses recognized in Mallela.

Finally, defendant’s interrogatories and other demands, to the extent that they seek information regarding the defenses defendant is now precluded from raising due to its untimely denial of claim, must be stricken.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery; it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint is granted unless within 60 days of service of this order with notice of entry, plaintiff complies with defendant’s discovery demands to the extent they seek information regarding those defenses that defendant is not precluded from raising due to its untimely denial of claim; it is further

ORDERED defendant’s discovery demands to the extent they seek information regarding defenses defendant is precluded from raising due to its untimely denial of the claim are hereby [*4]stricken; and it is further

ORDERED that if within 15 days of the date of this order, the parties do not agree in writing as to what discovery must be provided pursuant to this order, the parties are directed to contact the undersigned at (718) 390-5429 to arrange for a discovery conference.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: April 5, 2006 ________________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

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

119841/05

Delores J. Thomas, J.

The above captioned matter is before this Court on petitioner’s petition to vacate a No-Fault Master Arbitration Award pursuant to CPLR § 7511. Respondent submitted a Reply to Petition but the respondent was not present at oral argument therefore the reply was not considered and the decision herein is rendered on default.

Petitioner, a provider of medical services, seeks to recover first party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to its assignor. Petitioner submitted bills totaling $1,764.62 and partial payments were made in the amount of $849.84. When petitioner’s assignor did not receive reimbursement from respondent for the balance of the bill(s) which totaled $914.78 for the medical services provided, petitioner filed a Request for Arbitration. An arbitrator designated by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) issued a decision dated May 31, 2004 where the arbitrator found that:

“the applicant has no status to present this claim, as it no longer is

a Corporation registered with the New York State Department,

Division of Corporation. An unlicensed facility may not present

a claim for no-fault benefits. The denial by the respondent is

sustained. The claim is denied in its entirety.” [*2]

Petitioner requested a review by a Master Arbitrator who in a decision dated September 23, 2004 rendered a Master Arbitration Award upholding the lower Arbitration Award. The Master Arbitration Award was mailed to Petitioner on or about September 27, 2004 and less than ninety days have elapsed since Petitioner’s receipt of the Master Arbitration Award.

The issue before this court is whether the Master Arbitrator’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or having no plausible basis or whether the arbitrator’s award was unsupported by the evidence in his holding that the petitioner could not present a claim for no-fault benefits.

Judicial review of an arbitration award is limited by statute, specifically, CPLR § 7511 (Matter of Petrofsky v. Allstate Ins Co, 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Bamoun v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 75 AD2d 812 [2nd Dept 1980]; aff’d 52 NY2d 957 [1981]). However, in the case of compulsory arbitration, the award may be vacated where the arbitrator’s determination is without rational basis ( Caso v. Coffy, 41 NY2d 153, 158 [1976] the decision is arbitrary and capricious (Id; see generally Petrofsky v Allstate, supra); or if the determination disregards applicable law or is based on an error of law (Brunner v. Allstate Ins. Co., 79 AD2d 491 [4th Dept 1981]).

Courts have held that the Master Arbitrator’s authority to review the award of the lower arbitration is derived from Section 675 of the Insurance Law (Petrofsky v. Allstate, supra at 208). A Master Arbitrator therefore in addition to the grounds set forth in CPLR Article 75 is also authorized to review the award on the grounds set forth in11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.17 as promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance.

The role of the Master Arbitrator is to review the determination of the lower arbitrator to assure that the arbitrator reached his decision in a rational manner; and, that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, or incorrect as a matter of law (Petrofsky v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra). The Master Arbitrator while possessing broader powers of review than the Court, is however like the courts precluded from reviewing factual or procedural errors ((Petrofsky v. Allstate, supra).

In the instant case, the Master Arbitrator found that:

Although the rule stated by the lower arbitrator is overbroad and

would not apply to a corporation dissolved for legitimate personal

or business reasons, I conclude that it applies in the circumstances

of these cases.”

The Master Arbitrator went on to say that:

respondent alleged that the dissolution resulted from governmental

action or pressure predicated on applicant’s fraudulent, unethical and

improper practices. Applicant’s principal refused to comply with

directives that he testify and the arbitrator was within his power in

drawing adverse inference because of such refusal. I find that it would

be contrary to public policy to award benefits to an entity dissolved

and unlicensed as a result of its fraudulent and improper practices in

presenting claims for services. [*3]

Petitioner argues that it is entitled to payment as it submitted a proper proof of claim(s) and that the respondent’s denial of the claim was untimely. In addition, petitioner argues that the lower arbitrator allowed respondent to raise issues at the hearing which were irrelevant to the claim and such issues were precluded because they were not raised in a timely denial. Petitioner further argues that the subsequent status of a corporation has no bearing on such corporation’s ability to collect payment for services which were rendered while such corporation was active.

Defendant argues that the insurance company was entitled to withhold payment for medical services provided by a fraudulently incorporated medical corporation and cites to State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005](“Mallela III“) where the Court of Appeals held:

“The Superintendent’s regulation allowing carriers to withhold

reimbursement from fraudulently licensed medical corporations

governs this case. We hold that on the strength of this regulation,

carriers may look beyond the face of licensing documents to identify

willful and material failure to abide by state and local law.

Defendant further argues it submitted sufficient evidence to support the arbitrator’s denial by presenting a certificate from the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations showing that petitioner was dissolved; that the corporation was dissolved as part of a plea in a criminal matter; and, that the doctor who was served with a subpoena and was to testify as to the relationship between petitioner and a management group refused to appear upon the advice of his attorney.

Before the Court can decide on the whether to vacate the arbitrator and Master’s Arbitration’s award, this Court must first review the question as to whether section § 65-3.16(a)(12) should be applied prospectively only or retroactively. In this case, the services were provided on January 19, 2000. The stated reasons for denial as listed in the June 20, 2000 NF-10 are:

Diagnostic tests denied based upon AAEM recommendations

regarding reasonable numbers of studies to arrive at diagnosis.

Diagnostic tests have been over utilized & therefore were

unnecessary & did not assist in rendering any diagnosis.

Fees not in accordance to fee schedule. EMG supplies are included

in charge of the EMG test.

It is well settled that an insurer must either pay or deny a claim for first party no fault benefits within 30 days after receiving proof of the claim (see, Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR § 65.15[g][3] now 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[a]). Failure to timely deny the claim renders the no-fault benefits overdue, and the insurer is precluded from raising any defenses, other than lack of coverage (see, Presbyterian Hosp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]). It is clear that the NF-10 on its face shows that the claim was not timely denied ^[FN1] and it does not list [*4]fraud of any kind as the reason for denial. It is also clear that the Court of Appeals said in its holding in Mallela III, that an insurer may deny payment to a fraudulently incorporated provider. The Court of Appeals in Mallela III, however, failed to address the issue of whether § 65-3.16(a)(12) should apply retroactively to payments not yet paid by the insurance carrier.^[FN2] The lower courts have split in their decisions. Several courts have held that public policy concerns warrant denials of payment to fraudulent licensed medical providers and Mallela III should be applied retroactively (see, A.T. Med., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 10 Misc 3d 568, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25461 [Civ. Ct, Queens Co., 2005]; Multiquest, PLLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 1031, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25356 [Civ. Ct, Queens Co. 2005]; Metroscan Imaging PC v. Geico Ins. Co. 8 Misc 3d 829 [Civ. Ct, Queens Co. 2005]). Others courts have held that if the Court of Appeals wanted to apply the Mallela III decision retroactively, it would have said so. In addition, these courts have further held that unless the law or a review of the legislative history specifically state or indicate the law is retroactive in nature, the law is prospective only; therefore those courts have allowed fraudulently licensed providers to collect payments for services rendered prior to enactment of § 65-3.16(a)(12) (see, Multiquest P.L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co, 10 Misc 3d 1061[A], 2005 NY Slip Op. 52071[U] [Civ. Ct. Queens Co., 2005]); Multiquest PLLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 877, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25512 [Civ. Ct., Queens Co, 2005]. There is much debate as to whether a fraudulently licensed medical provider who provided services before April 5, 2002, is entitled to payment and the lower court’s have ruled inconsistently. The Court of Appeals has yet to rule on this issue. It is not this Court’s function nor within this court’s jurisdiction in the instant matter to settle this debate and rule one way or the other as any ruling from this court would simply be another voice in the debate. The review, in this case, is limited to whether the arbitrator or Master Arbitrator’s decisions was arbitrary or capricious or incorrect as a matter of law.

This Court finds that the determination by the arbitrator that fraud may be an issue in the processing of this claim does not constitute an arbitrary or capricious ruling nor is it incorrect as a matter of law. The decision is rationally reasoned based on the facts of this case.

In this case, the arbitrator took a negative inference from several facts that: (1) the applicant, despite the service of a subpoena, did not appear; (2) the corporation was no longer active; (3) such dissolution may have been the result of a plea bargain based upon fraudulent, criminal activity; and (4) the applicant’s representative did not present any information that contradicted respondent’s allegations.

A view of the arbitration award from both the lower and Master Arbitrator shows that there is no basis to vacate the award. Both arbitrators determined that the claim was rejected based upon an allegation of fraud. The issue regarding the relationship of the medical facility and its management group plus the negative inferences surrounding the applicant was a rational basis for denial of this claim. This holding and thus the arbitrator’s award was based upon the resolution of factual and legal determinations reached after reviewing the evidence submitted; such a determination may not be set aside by this Court even were the Court to disagree with [*5]those findings. The Master Arbitrator’s award therefore was neither arbitrary, capricious, irrational or without a substantial or plausible basis. Also, based upon the ruling in Mallela III and lower court cases, the decision is not incorrect as a matter of law.

Accordingly, petitioner’s petition seeking to vacate the Arbitration Award is hereby dismissed. This decision is rendered on default.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

DATED: March 31, 2006

Brooklyn, New York

DELORES J. THOMAS

Judge Civil Court

Footnotes

Footnote 1: There is no allegation that defendant asked for addition verification of information pursuant to 11 NYCRR §65-3.5.

Footnote 2: The Court of Appeals in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313,322 [2005] did hold that no cause of action for fraud of unjust enrichment would lie for any payments made by the carriers before that regulation’s effective date of April 4, 2002.