CV-704628-19/QU

Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Law Offices of Gabriel & Shapiro LLC

3361 Park Avenue, Suite 1000

Wantagh, NY 11793

Defendant’s Counsel:

Michael Seth Nightingale

100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 414

Garden City, NY 11530

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint:

Papers Numbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support dated August 21, 2019 (“Motion“) and file stamped by the court on August 26, 2019. 1

Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition dated and electronically filed with the court on November 23, 2020 (“Opposition“). 2

Defendant’s Reply Affirmation dated and electronically filed with the court on December 4, [*2]2020 (“Reply“). 3

II. Discussion and Decision

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Workers Compensation insurance was primary and thus barred Plaintiff’s claim for No-Fault benefits. Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

“[P]rimary jurisdiction with respect to the determination as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board and . . . it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” (Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]; Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629, 629-30 [2d Dept 2010], see LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752, 754 [2d Dept 2009]). By moving for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant asked this Court to determine the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law. In our instant matter, Defendant failed to support its contention regarding the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law with admissible evidence. Here, Defendant laid no foundation for the transcript of a recording of assignor’s unsworn statement, in which he admitted he was operating his employer’s vehicle for business purposes prior to the accident (see Motion, Aff. of Michael S. Nightingale, Ex. 2). The police accident report was also inadmissible because it was neither certified (Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v McAdam, 139 AD3d 691, 692 [2d Dept 2016]; Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Bates, 130 AD3d 795, 796 [2d Dept 2015]), nor sworn or supported with the affidavit of a witness with personal knowledge of the facts (LMS Med. Care v American Tr. Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50195[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]).

Even had Defendant presented admissible evidence, the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law to this case must be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 146[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51675[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2015]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 523761[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]; AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50708[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]). While Defendant cited Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (42 Misc 3d 145[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50340[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2014]) to support its motion, that case further supports the Court’s conclusion. Accordingly, this Court must hold Defendant’s motion in abeyance pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for determination of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law (Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51675[U] *1; Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50340[U] *1; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U] *2; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U] *2).

III. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment is held in abeyance pending determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law to this case, and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall advise the Court of the status of any determination of [*3]the Workers’ Compensation Board by June 1, 2021.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: April 30, 2021

Queens County Civil Court

_____________________________

Honorable Wendy Changyong Li, J.C.C.

CV-702516-19/QU

Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Law Offices of Gabriel & Shapiro

3361 Park Avenue, Suite 1000

Wantagh, NY 11793

Defendant’s Counsel:

Callinan & Smith, LLP

3361 Park Avenue, Suite 104

Wantagh, NY 11793

Wendy Changyong Li, J.

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint:

Papers Numbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support dated October 1, 2019 (“Motion”) and file stamped by the court on November 7, 2019.1

Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition (“Opposition”) dated and electronically filed with the court on October 5, 2020. 2

Defendant’s Affirmation in Reply (“Reply”) dated and electronically filed with the court on November 16, 2020. 3

II. Background

In a summons and complaint filed on February 7, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendant [*2]insurance company to recover a total of $5,739.44 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Shantay J.R. from October 2017 to April 2018, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest. The First cause of action was for recovery of a bill for services provided October 18 to November 2, 2017 (“First Bill“) in the amount of $405.60. The Third cause of action was for recovery of a $333.12 bill for services provided November 3 to 15, 2017 (“Second Bill“). The Fifth cause of action was for recovery of a $130.32 bill for services provided November 17 to 30, 2017 (“Third Bill“). The Seventh cause of action was for recovery of a $80.02 bill for services provided on October 13, 2017 (“Fourth Bill“). The Ninth cause of action was for recovery of a $148.69 bill for services provided on October 11, 2017 (“Fifth Bill“). The Eleventh cause of action was for recovery of a $92.97 bill for services provided on November 15, 2017 (“Sixth Bill“). The Thirteenth cause of action was for recovery of a bill in an unspecified amount for services provided at an unspecified time (“Seventh Bill“). The Fifteenth cause of action was for recovery of a $204.41 bill for services provided on October 11, 2017 (“Eighth Bill“). The Seventeenth cause of action was for recovery of a $204.41 bill for services provided on November 15, 2017 (“Ninth Bill“). The Nineteenth cause of action was for recovery of a $2,597.08 bill for services provided from December 26, 2017 to April 12, 2018 (“Tenth Bill“). The Twenty-First cause of action was for recovery of a $1,542.82 bill for services provided from October 13 to December 28, 2017. In a stipulation dated May 15, 2019, the parties amended such Twenty-First cause of action to recover a $593.76 bill for services provided December 1 to 28, 2017 (“Eleventh Bill“) (see Motion, Soriano Aff., Ex. C). This stipulation effectively reduced the amount Plaintiff sought to recover to $4,790.38. The Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-Second causes of action sought recovery of attorneys’ fees for each of the separate bills. Unlike the First Bill, Second Bill, Third Bill, Fourth Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Eighth Bill, and Ninth Bill, the Tenth Bill and Eleventh Bill are composed of several smaller bills for dates of service within the range of service dates alleged in the complaint.

Defendant now moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to attend scheduled Examinations Under Oath (“EUO“), or alternatively for judgment that Defendant established its prima facie case. Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. No cross-motion was filed by Plaintiff. An oral argument by both parties was conducted by this Court on April 8, 2021.

III. Discussion

CPLR 3212 provides that “a motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions” (CPLR 3212[b]). “Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “A defendant moving for summary judgment [seeking an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint] has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence, such as affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts, reciting the material facts and showing that the cause of action has no merit” (GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; Anghel v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 190 AD3d 906, 907 [2d Dept 2021], see Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). A motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, at [*3]562, see GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d at 968).

Insurers must pay or deny No-Fault benefit claims “within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the proof of the claim” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 501 [2015]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR § 65-3.8[c]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]). Failure to establish timely payment or denial of the claim precludes the insurer from offering evidence of its defense to non-payment (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d at 506; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 281-86). Noncompliance with an insurance policy provision requiring disclosure through an EUO is a failure of a condition precedent to an insurer’s duty to indemnify (IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2d Dept 2014]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]) and is a material policy breach precluding recovery of proceeds under the insurance policy (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 756 [2d Dept 2020]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2014]).

Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Cause of Action

As noted above, Plaintiff’s Thirteenth cause of action did not specify the amount of the bill or the dates of service for which the bill was issued. In its answer, Defendant denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to all the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, but asserted as the Third Affirmative Defense that the “complaint fail[ed] to state a proper cause of action as against [the] answering defendant” (Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. B). Moreover, Plaintiff addressed only ten (10) bills in its Opposition, even though eleven (11) bills were alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Here, this Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Thirteenth cause of action for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7]; 3212).

Plaintiff’s First, Seventh and Fifteenth Causes of Action

Plaintiff’s First, Seventh and Fifteenth causes of action concerned the First Bill for $405.60, Fourth Bill for $80.02, and Eighth Bill for $204.41. At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleged in its First cause of action that the amount of its First Bill was $405.60 and that no payment was made by Defendant. Defendant’s supporting evidence, however, indicated that the original First Bill was indeed in the amount of $456.36 and that Defendant’s adjuster, Kurz, allowed $405.60 as of March 1, 2018, leaving a balance of $50.76 (see Aff. Of Soriano, Ex. X and Y). Because Plaintiff only prayed for $405.60 regarding its First Bill in its compliant, this Court will only address Plaintiff’s First Bill in the amount of $405.60, not $456.36. Defendant argued that the foregoing described causes of action should be dismissed because the above three (3) bills were paid.

To support its motion, Defendant presented explanations of benefits dated November 22 and December 28, 2017, in which Defendant acknowledged receiving the three (3) bills on November 13, 2017 (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. T, V, and X). The explanations of benefits dated November 22 and December 28, 2017 (“November and December EOB“), advised Plaintiff that Defendant received the bills but was delaying payment “pending the Examination Under Oath of the above-mentioned claimant” (id.). The explanations of benefits included in the [*4]November and December EOB identified the claimant as J.R. (see id.). Here, the November and December EOB indicated that Defendant sought verification from J.R. who is Plaintiff’s assignor, but not Plaintiff. This Court notes that Defendant allegedly delayed its payment to the above three (3) bills pending EUO on Plaintiff’s assignor, not on Plaintiff itself, based on Defendant’s supporting documents presented in the Motion. Since letters that do not request verification to a plaintiff are insufficient to delay an insurer’s time to pay or deny a claim by such plaintiff (Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 17 [2d Dept 1999]; Parsons Med. Supply Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 148[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51649[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]; Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51338[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]; Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52191[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2008]), Defendant’s November and December EOB failed to toll Defendant’s time to pay the claims submitted by Plaintiff.

On another note, this Court does not have a reason to believe, based on the evidence presented by Defendant, that the language in Defendant’s November and December EOB, indicating that the delay of payment pending only Plaintiff’s assignor’s EUO, were typographical errors. Here, Defendant did not address this issue in the Motion or in the Reply. Furthermore, Defendant’s explanations of benefits regarding the Second Bill, Third Bill, Sixth Bill, Ninth Bill, and Eleventh Bill noted that payment was being delayed pending an EUO of both claimant (i.e., Plaintiff’s assignor) and provider (i.e., Plaintiff) (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. Z, BB, DD, FF, HH, and JJ).

While Defendant presented evidence that it paid the First Bill, Fourth Bill, and Eighth Bill on March 1, 2018 (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. ZZ and AAA), Defendant’s failure to toll the time to pay the bills received November 13, 2017, rendered the payments untimely. As such, Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to dismissal of Plaintiff’s First, Seventh, and Fifteenth causes of action, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action must be denied (Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Dairyland Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 152[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51705[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]); Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52225[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2013], see Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d 129[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50389[U] * 1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]).).

The failure to timely pay these claims precludes Defendant from raising defenses to non-payment of the claims (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d at 506; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Eagle Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 646, 647 [2d Dept 2005]). In addition, “[b]y statute, overdue payments earn monthly interest at a rate of two percent and entitle [Plaintiff] to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in securing payment of a valid claim” (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318, see Ins. Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR §§ 65-3.9[a], 3.10[a]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 278). In the instant matter, although Defendant paid Plaintiff for the First Bill, Fourth Bill and Eighth Bill as alleged in Plaintiff’s First, Seventh and Fifteenth causes of action, such payments were untimely. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to a statutory interest (11 NYCRR 65-3.9[c]; East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 202, 207-08 [2d Dept 2009]). The amount of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees for the First, Seventh and [*5]Fifteenth causes of action is governed by statute and regulation (Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR §§ 65-3.10[a]; 65-4.6[c] and [d]). Although Plaintiff would have been entitled to summary judgment on statutory interest and attorneys’ fees based on those causes of action (Nyack Hosp. v. Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535, 536 [2d Dept 2005]; Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 46 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51861[U] * 2 [App Term 2d Dept 2014]) if they were prayed for, here, Plaintiff did not cross move for summary judgment. Consequently, this Court will not award Plaintiff with statutory interest or attorney’s fee based on the motion papers currently before this Court.

Plaintiff’s Third, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-First Causes of Action

Defendant argued that the Third, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-First causes of action based respectively on the Second Bill, Third Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Ninth Bill, Tenth Bill, and Eleventh Bill were properly denied because Defendant timely denied the claims based on Plaintiff’s failure to attend duly scheduled EUOs.

In order to establish a defense that an insured failed to attend a duly scheduled EUO, an insurer must present evidence of the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d 693, 694 [2d Dept 2016]). This may be established with evidence of the actual mailing or by an affidavit of a person “with personal knowledge of the standard office practice for ensuring that the letters are properly addressed and mailed” (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d at 694).

To support its motion, Defendant presented the first request letter dated December 11, 2017, scheduling the EUO for January 9, 2018 (see Motion, Soriano Aff., Ex. G). Defendant also presented a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel dated January 3, 2018, which acknowledged receipt of the December 11, 2017 scheduling letter, but objected to the EUO (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. K) on grounds addressed more fully below. Here, such evidence established timely submission of the EUO request by Defendant (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1. In addition, after Plaintiff failed to appear for the January 9, 2018 EUO, Defendant timely sent a second scheduling letter dated January 10, 2018, which scheduled the EUO for January 25, 2018 (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. H) (11 NYCRR § 65-3.6[b]; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 58 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51835[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]). The transcripts of the EUO proceedings (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. J and M) constituted adequate proof of Plaintiff’s nonappearance at the EUOs (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1).

In an affidavit appended to the Motion sworn October 31, 2019, Mueller, Defendant’s litigation examiner, established Defendant’s claim processing and standard mailing procedures designed to ensure timely mailing and the timely denial of Plaintiff’s claims within thirty (30) [*6]days after the last scheduled EUO at which Plaintiff failed to appear (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Tam Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1). Regarding the Second Bill, Third Bill, Sixth Bill, Ninth Bill, and two of the bills included within the Eleventh Bill, for which Plaintiff submitted claims to Defendant before Plaintiff’s second non-appearance at an EUO, Defendant presented explanations of benefits, which delayed payment pending EUOs of both claimant (i.e., assignor) and provider (i.e., Plaintiff) (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. Z, BB, DD, FF, HH, and JJ). Since Defendant timely mailed the EUO request letters to Plaintiff, these explanations of benefits, which requested verification from Plaintiff, tolled Defendant’s time to pay or deny the claims submitted by Plaintiff (Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v ELRAC, Inc., 56 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50923[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]). Finally, with respect to the Tenth Bill and a bill included within the Eleventh Bill, which were submitted after Plaintiff’s second non-appearance at an EUO, Defendant presented the explanations of benefits and denial of claim forms which denied the claims based on these bills for Plaintiff’s failure to attend the EUOs (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU,VV, WW, XX, and YY). Therefore, Defendant’s denials of the Third, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-First causes of action based on the Second Bill, Third Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Ninth Bill, Tenth Bill, and Eleventh Bill on February 5, 2018 and subsequent to that date were timely (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757, see 11 NYCRR §§ 65-3.5[a]; 65-3.5[a]). Defendant’s evidence that it requested Plaintiff’s appearance at EUOs twice, that Plaintiff failed to appear both times and that Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim on that basis satisfied Defendant’s burden of establishing a material policy breach by Plaintiff (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d at 1007; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597).

IV. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

In opposition, Plaintiff contended that factual issues existed precluding Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff contended that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s objections to the EUOs. In the January 3, 2018 letter, Plaintiff’s counsel objected to Plaintiff’s EUO request based on the ground that the December 11, 2017 request letter from Defendant’s counsel did not identify the dates of service or state objective reasons for requesting an EUO and argued that invoking State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005]) did “not allow a carrier to obtain any and all information it request[ed]” (Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. K). Plaintiff’s counsel also notified Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff required $1,000.00 as reimbursement for loss of wages for attending an EUO.

Here, this Court’s research revealed no case law or statutory or regulatory authority that a letter objecting to an EUO tolls or delays the time for a No-Fault benefit applicant to appear for an EUO. The “insurer is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim directly from the parties from whom such verification was requested” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[c]). A letter objecting to an EUO does, however, preserve the No Fault benefit applicant’s objections to the reasonableness of a requested EUO for litigation (see National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; Starcar Med. Servs. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 133[A], 2016 NY Slip Op [*7]51415[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]; Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 134[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51026[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]). In our instant case, regarding the objections Plaintiff’s counsel raised in its January 3, 2018 objection letter and in opposition to the Motion, the Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s December 11, 2017 EUO request letter indeed indicated the claim number and date of loss which Plaintiff indicated on each claim Plaintiff submitted to Defendant. Moreover, “[a]ny requests by an insurer for additional verification need not be made on any prescribed or particular form” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[b]). The No-Fault regulations do not require “an insurer’s notice of scheduling an EUO to specify the reason[s] why the insurer is requiring the EUOs” (City Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 64 Misc 3d 134[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51102[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]; Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 63 Misc 3d 132[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50423[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]; Flow Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 132[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51142[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2014], see Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50685[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2015]). Based on the evidence presented before this Court, it appears that Plaintiff’s EUO request letter dated December 11, 2017 did not cite State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005]), as Plaintiff’s counsel alleged, and has complied with the requirement that it advise that Plaintiff “will be reimbursed for any loss of earnings and reasonable transportation expenses incurred in complying with the request” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[e]). Further, a request for a flat fee for attending an EUO is improper (Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]).

Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, Defendant in fact responded to Plaintiff’s letters objecting to the EUOs (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. L, O and Q) even though no such response is required to establish noncompliance with a scheduled EUO (see Interboro v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597; 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 69 Misc 3d 142[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51364[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2020]; Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 62 Misc 3d 145[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]). Also contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Defendant was not required to provide “objective reasons for requesting [an] EUO” (21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 51364[U] *1; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51518[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017], see New Way Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 136[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51158[U]*2 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]; Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U] *2). Finally, Plaintiff cited Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. [Elite Med. Supply of NY, LLC] (162 AD3d 1471 [4th Dept 2018]), which held that claimants objecting to verification requests were entitled to have an arbitrator to decide controversy, but which had no bearing on the instant matter.

Here, Plaintiff failed to raise factual issues regarding Defendant’s defense of Plaintiff’s failure to attend an EUO. This Court finds that Defendant has presented prima facie admissible evidence proving that there is no material issue of fact, that the controversy regarding Plaintiff’s third, fifth, ninth, eleventh, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first causes of action can be decided as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]; Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 [2014]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]), that Plaintiff has failed to raise factual issues requiring a trial (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at [*8]757; Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 58 Misc 3d 142[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51882[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; K.O. Med., P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 145[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51454[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]), and that Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s third, fifth, ninth, eleventh, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first causes of action.

Plaintiff’s Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-Second Causes of Action

This Court notes that in Plaintiff’s second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, fourteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty-second causes of action, Plaintiff improperly pleaded claims for attorneys’ fees based on each individual bill. It is well established by case law that in No-Fault actions, attorneys’ fees are calculated based on a single insured, not on each bill submitted by a provider (LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 [2009]; A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins., 26 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50264[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]). As discussed above, this Court finds that Defendant failed to timely pay the claims under the first, seventh and fifteenth causes of action, which entitles Plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees (Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.9[a]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 278). Given that Plaintiff’s first, seventh and fifteenth causes of action survive summary judgment dismissal, the Court dismisses the improperly pleaded second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, fourteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty-second causes of action, but preserves the sixteenth cause of action for attorneys’ fees regarding the first, seventh, and fifteenth causes of action.

V. Decision

As discussed above, although Defendant paid the bills pleaded in Plaintiff’s first, seventh and fifteenth causes of action, Defendant paid those bills untimely and Plaintiff is entitled to recovery attorney’s fees and statutory interest. As a result, Plaintiff’s first, seventh and fifteenth causes of action survive Defendant’s motion for summary judgement to dismiss. Although Plaintiff improperly pleaded claims for attorneys’ fees based on each individual bill in its respective eleven (11) causes of action, this Court preserves Plaintiff’s sixteenth cause of action but otherwise dismisses other causes of action regarding attorneys’ fees in order to address the attorney’s fee for the first, seventh, and fifteenth causes of action. Because Plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgement, here, this Court will not grant Plaintiff with attorney’s fee or statutory interest sua sponte. The rest of Plaintiff’s causes of action are dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to attend scheduled EUO.

VI. Order

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is granted to the extent of dismissing Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second causes of action based on Plaintiff’s Second Bill, Third Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Seventh Bill, Ninth Bill, Tenth Bill and Eleventh Bill and the separately pleaded claims for attorneys’ fees, but is otherwise denied, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first, seventh, and fifteenth causes of action to recover the First, Bill, Fourth Bill and Eighth Bill, respectively in the amounts of $405.60, $80.02 and [*9]$204.41, for services provided respectively, from October 18 through November 2, 2017, on October 13, 2017, and on October 11, 2017, shall proceed to trial only on the issue of the amount of statutory interest, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s sixteenth cause of action to recover attorneys’ fees shall proceed to trial.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: April 29, 2021
Queens County Civil Court
_____________________________________

Honorable Wendy Changyong Li, J.C.C.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, April 20, 2021

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rivkin Radler, LLP, Uniondale (Donald Kernisant Jr. of counsel), for defendant.

Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn (Jaime Koo of counsel), for plaintiff.

In this first-party no-fault action, defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 to reargue that portion of this court’s February 28, 2019 decision which reserved the reasonableness of the content of defendant’s request for post-examination under oath (EUO) additional verification as an issue of fact for trial. Defendant contends its request is not subject to judicial review and is valid under the no-fault rules as a matter of law. Defendant claims the court misapprehended the law when it reserved for trial the question of the reasonableness of these additional verification requests. Plaintiff claims defendant failed to establish its outstanding verification defense and that, under the circumstances of this case, the substance of the additional requests was improper and an abuse of the verification process. Plaintiff maintains that defendant’s demand for this type of additional verification placed an improper onus on the provider to supply documents outside the scope of the claim verification process. They claim that defendant’s denial was improper as it was based on a claimed failure to provide some or all of these impermissible requests. Plaintiff further argued that defendant had acquired sufficient information to determine whether to verify or [*2]deny the claim from the provider’s EUO and defendant’s own related investigation. The court notes that defendant interposed a Mallela defense in its answer and that similar demands were made in combined demands served upon plaintiff.

The decision of whether to grant reargument is within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v Carter, 81 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2011]; Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 178 AD3d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2019]; Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669 [2d Dept 2009]). A motion for reargument “ ’is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to{**72 Misc 3d at 344} reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented’ ” (Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v Carter, 81 AD3d at 820, quoting McGill v Goldman, 261 AD2d 593, 594 [2d Dept 1999]; Jaspar Holdings, LLC v Gotham Trading Partners #1, LLC, 186 AD3d 582 [2d Dept 2020]). The movant must make an effort to demonstrate in what manner the court, in rendering the original determination, overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or law (see Nicolia v Nicolia, 84 AD3d 1327 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v Carter, 81 AD3d at 820).

“Once the court reviews the merits of the movant’s arguments, the court, by doing so, has granted reargument, and must determine whether to adhere to the original determination, or alter the original determination. If the movant has alleged that the original determination overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or law, and the court disagrees, it will adhere to the original determination” (Ahmed v Pannone, 116 AD3d 802, 810-811 [2d Dept 2014, Hinds-Radix, J., dissenting] [citation omitted]).

Upon review of the parties’ submissions, defendant’s motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended relevant facts or misapplied governing principles of law (see McGill v Goldman, 261 AD2d 593 [2d Dept 1999]). Accordingly, the court adheres to its original decision wherein it ruled that the reasonableness of defendant’s post-EUO request for additional verification remained an issue of fact for trial.

As an initial matter, this court notes that defendant’s post-EUO request for additional verification is the matter at issue herein. The court emphasizes this because in the instant motion, paragraph three of defendant’s affirmation and much of its supporting legal authority pertain to the issue of an EUO no-show, a matter that at no point was in dispute or an issue in the underlying motion. Conversely, at the outset of defendant’s affirmation in support of the underlying summary judgment motion, defendant argued for dismissal of the complaint “because Plaintiff failed to provide GEICO with post examination under oath (‘EUO’) verification that was timely requested pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5″ (emphasis added). Further, the affidavits in support of defendant’s underlying motion also relate to the issue of outstanding additional verification.{**72 Misc 3d at 345} Likewise, the arguments in plaintiff’s opposition to both the underlying and instant motions apply to outstanding additional verification requests. No other issue is properly before the court for reargument. It is also noted that reargument is not sought as to that portion of the decision wherein the court granted each party summary judgment to the extent that they established their prima facie case. Therefore, the court’s ensuing decision and analysis will discuss the issue of the outstanding post-EUO verification request only.

Defendant commenced an investigation into Arthur Avenue Medical Services because it claimed that it identified several facts and circumstances that called into question the provider’s eligibility to collect no-fault benefits. Defendant specifically investigated whether Arthur Avenue was truly owned and controlled by Jaime G. Gutierrez, M.D., or was actually owned and [*3]controlled by laypersons. The investigation included but was not limited to a review and analysis of claims files, public records, previous investigations into other entities that operate out of the same location, previous investigations into other entities where Dr. Gutierrez rendered services and billing submissions submitted to the carrier for reimbursement. Submitted with defendant’s original motion is the affidavit of Glenn Simmons, an investigator with GEICO’s Special Investigations Unit, which sets forth the extent of the investigation and conclusions arrived, namely that: patients treated at Arthur Avenue were referred to that provider by Dr. Gutierrez (who operates at the same location); Dr. Gutierrez provided services on behalf of Jaime G. Gutierrez, M.D., then referred the same patients to Arthur Avenue for additional medical treatment; various doctors performed services, yet the billing submissions name Dr. Gutierrez as the only service provider; improper performance of nerve testing including omissions of necessary steps in the administration of the tests; absence of variation in the pattern of treatment and use of predetermined treatment protocol, etc. Mr. Simmons states that the investigation uncovered indications that laypersons were improperly influencing the manner and method of treatment provided to claimants, that Arthur Avenue was rendering services pursuant to a predetermined treatment protocol designed to maximize profit and that Arthur Avenue’s charges may be the result of improper self-referrals.

In addition to the investigation, it is undisputed that on March 9, 2017, Jaime Gutierrez, M.D., appeared on behalf of{**72 Misc 3d at 346} Arthur Avenue in full compliance with defendant’s EUO request. The court’s review of the EUO transcript annexed to the underlying motion reveals that the EUO took place over the course of five hours with questioning involving medical treatment as well as the provider’s licensing and corporate structure. Dr. Gutierrez’s testimony lent further support to the concerns over fraud previously investigated by defendant, including whether Arthur Avenue was a party to unlawful financial relationships with unlicensed individuals and entities, whether laypersons were improperly influencing the manner and methods of treatment provided to GEICO’s insureds and whether Arthur Avenue is truly owned and controlled by Dr. Gutierrez or by laypersons all in contravention to New York law. Defendant claims that its request for additional verification was based on the information obtained during the EUO and that the EUO raised questions regarding improper corporate structure and fee sharing. Thus, by letter dated March 20, 2017, defendant requested that plaintiff provide the following additional verification:

“1. A complete copy of the lease agreements, if any, entered into by Arthur Medical, including any accompanying Schedules, Documents, Floor Plans or Riders, regarding the following premises:

“• 764 Elmont Road, Elmont

“• 293 East 53rd Street, Brooklyn

“• 2363 Ralph Avenue, Brooklyn

“• 9004 Merrick Boulevard, Jamaica

“• 2625 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn

“2. [*4]All article[s] of incorporation, including but not limited to any By-Laws for Arthur Medical;

“3. A complete copy of the billing agreement entered between Arthur Medical and Collection Services, Inc./Inna Lyubronestkaya;

“4. All invoices between Collection Services, Inc./Inna Lyubronestkaya and Arthur Medical;

“5. All W-2, 1099, and/or K-1 forms from Arthur Medical, including, but not limited to, any documentation regarding the employee status or relationship between Arthur Medical and any person rendering services on behalf of Arthur Medical;

“6. All quarterly payroll and tax returns (IRS Form 941 and NYS Form 45-MN) filed from 2016 to present by or on behalf of Arthur Medical;{**72 Misc 3d at 347}

“7. Opening/signatory authorization documents for the Arthur Medical Chase bank account;

“8. Copies of all bank statements and cancelled checks for Arthur Medical from 2016 to present;

“• These include, but is not to be limited to, all checks made to: (i) Collection Services, In[c]./Inna; (ii) Osvaldo; (iii) the physician assistant; and (iv) all rent payments.

“9. All documents relating to Arthur Avenue’s corporate card from 2016 to present;

“10. General ledgers for Arthur Medical from 2016 to present;

“11. Proof of payment of the P.O. Box utilized by Arthur Medical;

“12. All licenses to practice medicine in New York for Dr. Gutierrez as well as any certification to render EMG/NCV testing; and

“13. Proof of purchase of the medical equipment utilized by Arthur Medical, including but not limited to the EMG/NCV machine.”

Relevant to the matter herein, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b) of the No-Fault Law provides, “Subsequent to the receipt of one or more of the completed verification forms, any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim shall be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms.” This section authorizes an insurer, upon receiving the written proof of claim or written notice of its substantial equivalent, to request “any additional verification required . . . to establish proof of claim . . . within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms” (Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, 299 [2007]; A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 101 AD3d 53 [2d Dept 2012]). Additionally, section 65-3.2 (c) dictates that insurance carriers “not demand verification of facts unless there are good reasons to do so. When verification of facts is necessary, it should be done as expeditiously as possible” (11 NYCRR 65-3.2 [c]). Indeed, underlying the enactment of the no-fault regulations is the principle of expediency in the processing of claims (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 285 [1997]). “No-fault reform was enacted to provide prompt uncontested, first-party insurance benefits” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 285).{**72 Misc 3d at 348}

In the context of no-fault reimbursement, to be eligible for benefits, a medical services corporation must be owned by a physician who practices medicine through the corporation (Business Corporation Law § 1508) and may not bill for medical services provided by physicians not employed by the corporation, such as independent contractors (11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a]). Further, the corporation may not share professional service fees with third parties, such as referral fees (8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [4]). It is well established that New York law prohibits unlicensed individuals from organizing a professional service corporation for profit or exercising control over such entities (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a]). As relevant herein, the underlying policy concern in the medical field is “that the so-called ‘corporate practice of medicine’ could create ethical conflicts and undermine the quality of care afforded to patients” (Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 33 NY3d 389, 404 [2019], quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 372 F3d 500, 503 [2d Cir 2004]).

In the seminal case, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, the Court of Appeals held that medical providers that fail to meet the New York State licensing requirements are not eligible for no-fault reimbursement (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]).

“A successful Mallela defense permits an insurer to avoid paying an otherwise valid no-fault claims [sic] because the provider is not eligible to obtain payment of no-fault benefits because the entity providing the services is owned or significantly controlled by persons who are not licensed to practice the profession for which the professional business entity was formed” (Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 1236[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52255[U], *3 [Nassau Dist Ct 2011] [citations omitted]).

An insurance carrier may, at any time, assert a non-precludable “Mallela defense” and deny payment based on the medical provider’s fraudulent incorporation (Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 149 AD3d 828 [2d Dept 2017]; Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v General Assur. Co., 35 Misc 3d 42, 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). “Inasmuch as the defense of ‘fraudulent incorporation’ is not subject to the preclusion rule, the defendant may raise this defense in its answer, even if not asserted in the{**72 Misc 3d at 349} claim denial” (Island Chiropractic Testing, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51001[U], *2 [Suffolk Dist Ct 2012]).

With regards to Mallela related documents, the case law clearly lays out a “good cause” [*6]standard which a carrier must demonstrate in order to investigate licensing violations. In its Mallela decision, the Court of Appeals emphasized the Superintendent’s regulation permitting carriers to withhold reimbursement from fraudulently licensed medical corporations:

“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. Defendants argue that the carriers will turn this investigatory privilege into a vehicle for delay and recalcitrance.

“The regulatory scheme, however, does not permit abuse of the truth-seeking opportunity that 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) authorizes. Indeed, the Superintendent’s regulations themselves provide for agency oversight of carriers, and demand that carriers delay the payment of claims to pursue investigations solely for good cause (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.2 [c]). In the licensing context, carriers will be unable to show ‘good cause’ unless they can demonstrate behavior tantamount to fraud. Technical violations will not do. For example, a failure to hold an annual meeting, pay corporate filing fees or submit otherwise acceptable paperwork on time will not rise to the level of fraud. We expect, and the Legislature surely intended, vigorous enforcement action by the Superintendent against any carrier that uses the licensing-requirement regulation to withhold or obstruct reimbursements to nonfraudulent health care providers” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 321-322 [emphasis added]).

In the recently decided Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co.,^[FN*] the Court of Appeals upheld its decision in Mallela and added that

“[a] corporate practice that shows ‘willful and material failure to abide by’ licensing and incorporation statutes (Mallela, 4 NY3d at 321) may support{**72 Misc 3d at 350} a finding that the provider is not an eligible recipient of reimbursement under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) without meeting the traditional elements of common-law fraud” (Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 33 NY3d 389, 405 [2019]).

In cases involving Mallela-type concerns, courts of competent jurisdiction have reviewed the reasonableness of verification requests similar to those at issue. In Island Chiropractic Testing, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., the court held that “verification requests, seeking inter alia, copies of ‘sale of shares or transfer of ownership (and) lease agreements’ are impermissible and improper requests, and cannot support the finding of a denial ‘toll’ which would permit an award of summary judgment to defendant” (Island Chiropractic Testing, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51001[U], *2 [Suffolk Dist Ct 2012]). “Permitting an insurer to obtain written documents such as tax returns, incorporation agreements or leases regarding a potential fraudulent incorporation ‘[Mallela]’ defense as part of the verification process defeats the stated policy and purpose of the no-fault law and carries with it the potential for abuse” (Island Chiropractic Testing, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51001[U], *2). In underlining that denying use of such requests does not prejudice the carrier, the court noted that as “the defense of ‘fraudulent incorporation’ is not subject to the preclusion rule, the defendant may raise this defense in its answer, even if not asserted in the claim denial” (Island Chiropractic Testing, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51001[U], *2).

Similarly, the court in Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. ruled that “Mallela type material cannot be obtained as verification of the claim. Requesting an [sic] [*7]provider to produce voluminous corporate records in order to obtain payment of a no-fault claim is an abuse of the EUO and the entire verification process” (Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 1213[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50676[U], *6 [Nassau Dist Ct 2012], mod 42 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52225[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]). This court notes that on appeal, the Appellate Term dismissed the plaintiff’s case based on an EUO no-show and therefore did not rule on the issue of the verification request content and reasonableness (Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52225[U]).

By comparison, in the context of litigation wherein a carrier asserts a Mallela defense, courts have generally ruled on the{**72 Misc 3d at 351} propriety of pretrial discovery demands for corporate documents and information. The Appellate Term has consistently held that a plaintiff is obligated to produce the information sought except as to matters which are privileged or palpably improper (Marino v County of Nassau, 16 AD3d 628 [2d Dept 2005]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Clinton Place Med., P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51012[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 58 Misc 3d 135[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51810[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). Further, discovery demands concerning a Mallela defense are granted as long as there are sufficient allegations supporting such a defense (see Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v General Assur. Co., 35 Misc 3d 42, 43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; BS Kings County Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 68 Misc 3d 879 [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2020]). However, it is proper for a court to deny discovery demands seeking information that is “irrelevant, overly broad, or burdensome” (Pesce v Fernandez, 144 AD3d 653, 655 [2d Dept 2016]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 10 [2008]).

Based on the foregoing, the court adheres to its decision on defendant’s summary judgment motion. To prevail on summary judgment, the moving party must provide sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The “[f]ailure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Defendant failed to establish its affirmative defense of outstanding verification in its underlying motion. The reasonableness of defendant’s post-EUO additional verification request remains an issue of fact for trial.

Defendant’s assertion that this court lacks the authority to preserve the reasonableness of additional verification requests for trial conflicts with prevailing no-fault regulations and case law. Both the Mallela and Carothers Courts stressed principles of expediency and good cause in investigations of fraudulent licensing and improper fee sharing and acknowledged that abuse of the verification process may exist. At no time did the{**72 Misc 3d at 352} Court of Appeals state that carriers have unfettered authority in the extent of these investigations. Although there is a lack of Appellate Term authority on this issue, courts of competent jurisdiction have reviewed the content of verification requests in cases similar to the instant matter and have ruled that comparable requests fall outside of the verification scheme. It is the court’s view that it has authority to review additional verification requests to ensure that parties comply with no-fault claim verification procedures. Thus, the question of whether the additional verification was reasonable and necessary for defendant to verify or to deny the claim, based on fraud, is within the court’s authority to determine.

In this matter, the provider fully complied with defendant’s EUO request. Defendant obtained substantial Mallela-type information relevant to its suspicion of fraud during the course of the five-hour EUO, that included a multitude of questions related to corporate structure. Defendant also conducted its own investigation into plaintiff’s billing and medical practices as laid out in the affidavit of its special unit investigator. This inquiry and investigation were well within the guidelines of the No-Fault Law and adhered to the “good cause” requirement as set forth by Mallela and Carothers. However, defendant’s subsequent request for additional information through use of the no-fault claim verification process may be unreasonable and constitute an investigation that goes beyond the purview of the no-fault reimbursement system. “New York’s no-fault automobile insurance system is designed to ensure prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence, to reduce the burden on the courts” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 562 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The court emphasizes the limited purpose of the no-fault system: “Verification is permitted to ‘verify the claim.‘ 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(c)” (Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50676[U], *4 [emphasis added]). A claim is either verified or it is not. Had defendant suspected fraud after the five-hour EUO, defendant may have denied the claim based on fraudulent incorporation at that point in time. Furthermore, in the context of verification of a claim, some of the requested information may be privileged or categorized as improper pre-litigation discovery. Thus, the propriety of the additional verification request upon which the defendant denied the claim remains an issue of fact for trial.{**72 Misc 3d at 353}

Notwithstanding the above, the court’s determination to adhere to its original decision is also based on defendant’s failure to provide the court with a complete record in support of its original request for summary judgment based on its outstanding verification defense. Defendant acknowledges in a footnote in its underlying motion that it received “some” of the requested documents from plaintiff. However, defendant does not identify what plaintiff provided and what remained outstanding from its comprehensive list of post-EUO verification requests, which includes documents subject to privilege and confidentiality rules. The court was unable to rule on the issue it preserved for trial in the absence of these relevant facts. Therefore, in accordance with the original decision, this defense remains an issue of fact for trial.

Finally, the court emphasizes that its decision should not be construed as a substantive ruling on the merit of defendant’s Mallela defense. Rather, the court’s decision is based on its adherence to claim verification procedures as laid out in the no-fault rules. The court is well versed in the public policy concerns underlying the no-fault regulations which govern medical provider licensing and prohibit fee sharing with nonmedical professionals. The prevalence of this fraud provides an insurance carrier with a choice of legal recourse including asserting a non-precludable Mallela defense or a defense related to licensing ineligibility within no-fault litigation, standing to bring a civil action against a medical provider based on fraud or filing a criminal complaint (see Travelers Indem. Co. v Parisien, 70 Misc 3d 1203[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51561[U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2020]; Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50676[U]). However, in light of the aforementioned case law and principles, the court reaffirms that the propriety of the post-EUO request for additional verification is subject to the court’s review.

Based on the foregoing, defendant’s motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, defendant’s motion is denied.

Footnotes

Footnote *:In Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., the Court of Appeals modified the definition of fraud previously laid out in Mallela.

CV-704182-19/QU

Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Gitelis Law Firm, P.C.

2004 Coney Island Avenue, 2d Floor

Brooklyn, NY 11223

Defendant’s Counsel:

Hollander Legal Group, P.C.

105 Maxess Road, Suite S128

Melville, NY 11747

 Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint:

Papers Numbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion seeking summary judgment and Affirmation 1In Support dated July 29, 2019 (“Motion“) and file stamped by the court on August 7, 2019.

Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition dated September 25, 2019 (“Opposition“). 2

Defendant’s Affirmation in Reply dated February 4, 2020 (“Reply“) 3and electronically filed with the court June 8, 2020.

Background

In a summons and complaint filed on March 1, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendant insurance company to recover $9,609.62 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Seleznyov from February to July 2018, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to attend scheduled Examinations Under Oath (“EUO”), or alternatively for judgment that Defendant established its prima facie case. Plaintiff opposed the motion.

Discussion and Decision

CPLR 3212 provides that “a motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions…” (CPLR 3212 [b]). “Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “A defendant moving for summary judgment [seeking an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint] has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence, such as affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts, reciting the material facts and showing that the cause of action has no merit” (GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; Anghel v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 190 AD3d 906, 907 [2d Dept 2021], see Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). A motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, at 562, see GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d at 968).

Insurers must pay or deny No-Fault benefit claims “within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the proof of the claim” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 501 [2015]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR § 65-3.8[c]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]). Failure to establish timely denial of the claim precludes the insurer from offering evidence of its defense to non-payment (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d at 506; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 281-86). Noncompliance with an insurance policy provision requiring disclosure through an EUO is a failure of a condition precedent to an insurer’s duty to indemnify (IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2d Dept 2014]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]) and is a material policy breach precluding recovery of proceeds under the insurance [*2]policy (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 756 [2d Dept 2020]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2014]).

In order to establish a defense that an insured failed to attend a duly scheduled EUO, an insurer must present evidence of the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d 693, 694 [2d Dept 2016]). This may be established with evidence of the actual mailing or by an affidavit of a person “with personal knowledge of the standard office practice for ensuring that the letters are properly addressed and mailed” (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d at 694). To support its motion, Defendant presented the first demand letter dated April 5, 2018, scheduling the EUO for May 1, 2018, (see Motion, Aff. of Drapan, Ex. X). Further, in an affidavit sworn July 29, 2019, Hollander, president of Defendant’s law firm, attested to the standard office mailing procedures for sending EUO request letters (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex. GG), which established timely submission of the EUO request (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]). Although Seleznyov failed to appear for the EUO on May 1, 2018 with advanced notice, he appeared with counsel for the EUO rescheduled for May 30, 2018. Seleznyov’s counsel had a conflicting appointment, however, which did not allow the EUO to be completed (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex. AA). While a mutually agreed rescheduling prior to an EUO does not constitute a failure to appear (Apple Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 47 Misc 3d 145[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50701[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2015]; Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52005[U] *1; DVS Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51443[U] * 2 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]), there is no evidence of such agreement despite Defendant’s acknowledgement that the law firm representing Seleznyov contacted Defendant’s counsel the day before the EUO scheduled on May 1, 2018, to advise that Seleznyov would not appear. Defendant also presented a letter dated June 5, 2018, which scheduled the continued EUO for June 26, 2018 (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex. BB), and, a letter dated June 28, 2018, which scheduled the continued EUO for July 25, 2018 (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex. DD), as well as a follow up letter dated June 29, 2018 (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex EE). These subsequent EUO scheduling letters timely scheduled the continued EUOs after each time Seleznyov failed to appear for the respective scheduled EUO (11 NYCRR § 65-3.6[b]; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 58 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51835[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]). The transcripts of the EUO proceedings (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex. Y, CC, FF) constituted adequate proof of Seleznyov’s nonappearance at the EUOs (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1). Although Seleznyov appeared for one EUO, Defendant’s evidence still established Seleznyov’s failure to appear for an initial EUO on May 1, 2018, and a [*3]follow-up EUOs on June 26 and July 25, 2018, to prove Plaintiff’s failure of a condition precedent to Defendant’s duty to pay the claims (see Apple Massage Therapy, P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch., 56 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50935[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 140[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52005[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2013]).

The affidavits of Mclendon, Operations Manager of Defendant’s agent for processing incoming and outgoing mail, established Defendant’s standard mailing procedures designed to ensure timely mailing and the timely denial of Plaintiff’s claims within 30 days after the last scheduled EUO at which Seleznyov failed to appear (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Tam Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1). Therefore, Defendant’s denial of these claims on August 3, 2018 was timely (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757, see 11 NYCRR §§ 65-3.5[a]; 65-3.5[a]). Defendant’s evidence that it requested Seleznyov’s appearance at the continued EUOs twice after the EUO for which he did appear and testify, that he failed to appear both times for the scheduled continued EUOs and that Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim on such basis satisfied Defendant’s burden of establishing a material policy breach by Plaintiff (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d at 1007; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597). Finally, Defendant’s evidence demonstrated that it paid a bill from Plaintiff that Defendant received on March 30, 2018 (see Motion, Drapan Aff. Ex K).

In opposition, Plaintiff presented no contrary evidence, but merely argued generally that Defendant’s evidence was inadmissible. In the instant matter, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claims on the ground that Plaintiff assignor failed to attend scheduled EUO. In its Motion, Defendant presented various affidavits documenting Plaintiff assignor’s failure to attend the scheduled respective continued EUOs. This Court finds such affidavits admissible. Defendant also presented affidavits establishing its timely denial of Plaintiff’s claims, and this Court finds such affidavits also admissible. If Plaintiff were to present affidavit indicating that Plaintiff assignor indeed had attended such scheduled respective continued EUOs or that Plaintiff did not timely receive Defendant’s denial of claims, a factual issue would have been raised warranting a trial. Here, Plaintiff did not. This Court finds that Defendant has presented prima facie admissible evidence proving that there is no material issue of fact and that the controversy can be decided as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]; Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 [2014]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]), and that Plaintiff has failed to raise factual issues requiring a trial (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 58 Misc 3d 142[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51882[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; K.O. Med., P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 145[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51454[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]). Although Plaintiff also argued without presenting any evidence, that Defendant failed to establish that its denials of claim were issued in duplicate, Mclerndon’s affidavits were sufficient to establish that Defendant’s explanations of review and denial of claim forms were submitted in duplicate (Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v Redland Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 140[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52263[U] [*4]*1 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]). In any event, the failure to present a denial of claim in duplicate, standing alone, is not fatal to Defendant’s defense (Mollo Chiropractic, PLLC v American Commerce Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 66, 69 [App Term 2d Dept 2013]). Finally, in light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, consideration of Defendant’s evidence that Plaintiff’s claims exceeded the applicable fee schedules is academic.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, and it is further

ORDERED that the clerk is directed to dispose of this index number for all purposes.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: April 16, 2021

Queens County Civil Court

Honorable Li, J.C.C.

CV-705866-17
John A. Howard-Algarin, J.

A bench trial was held before this Court on March 23, 2021, in this action to recover first party no-fault benefits related to claims made by Assignee, New York Center for Specialty Surgery (hereafter “Specialty Surgery” or “Provider”), for manipulation under anesthesia (“MUA”) procedures performed on Assignor, Jennifer Barrera (“Barrera”). Specifically, Specialty Surgery seeks payment in the amount of: $5,113.01 for an MUA performed on February 12, 2017 (as to Index No. 705866-17); $3,821.76 for an MUA performed on February 25, 2017 (as to Index No. 705867-17); and, $5,113.01 for an MUA on March 4, 2017 (as to Index No. 705884-17). Defendant, State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”), has declined to pay for the procedures deeming them medically unnecessary. A prior court order disposed of all other matters save for the question of payment for the aforementioned procedures.

Prior to commencement of the trial, the parties stipulated to the timeliness of both the plaintiff’s claims for payment for the procedures and the defendant’s denials thereof. The parties also stipulated into evidence: a peer review and addendum by State Farm’s sole witness herein, Daniel Spostas, D.C., (Defendant’s Exhibits A and B); the relevant treatment records (Defendant’s Exhibit C); and a series of bills and denials related to the three procedures (Defendant’s Exhibits D through I). Finally, the parties stipulated to Chiropractor Sposta’s expertise in the field of chiropractic medicine. Having satisfied its prima facie burden by way of the evidentiary stipulations, and after bilateral waivers of opening statements, the plaintiff rested. As is well settled in no-fault insurance law, State Farm bore the burden of establishing that the MUA procedures were not medically necessary (See e.g., Tremont Medical Diagnostic, P.C., v. GEICO Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 131(A) [App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

State Farm’s case in chief consisted solely of Dr. Spostas’ testimony. As anticipated, Spostas testified on direct examination that the MUA procedures performed on Barrera were not medically necessary. Following the arguments set forth in his peer review of April 4, 2017, and addendum of May 3, 2017 — both documents virtually identical in substance — Spostas testified concerning the general protocols for chiropractors considering use of MUA procedures. In this [*2]regard, he deemed those promulgated by the National Academy of Manipulation Under Anesthesia Physicians (“NAMUA”) to be authoritative.

Relying primarily on the NAMUA protocols and the scope of chiropractic treatment as defined in Education Law § 6551(1), Spostas opined that Barrera was not a proper MUA candidate given the absence of evidence in the medical record reflecting: (1) a second medical opinion or interdisciplinary advice concerning use of the procedure; (2) blood tests and other screening for the patient’s tolerance of anesthesia; (3) a history of severe pain, spinal adhesions, voluntary muscle contracture, apprehensive muscle splinting or severe spasms; or (4) a failure to improve after a period of conventional chiropractic treatment. He also opined that anesthetized manipulation of Barrera’s hip and shoulder regions exceeded the scope of medical treatment contemplated within the discipline of chiropractic medicine.

Notably, Spostas proffered most of these very same pre-MUA standards in Kraft v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co., 34 Mic. 376 [Civ Ct, Queens Cty, 2011]. His purported standards were generally found to be lacking merit in that case. They gain no traction in this one. Here, as in Kraft, Dr. Spostas cited to no authority to support his contention that a second medical opinion or interdisciplinary advice was required prior to performance of a MUA procedure on a chiropractic patient. To be sure, the NAMUA protocols appear to be silent on the matter, as they are respecting his suggestion that a patient’s blood must be screened as part of NAMUA’s preoperative procedures under the protocols. Hence, what remains to be considered is whether, in view of Barrera’s medical and treatment history and the protocols, implementation of the MUA procedures was justified. Upon review of the record in evidence here, this Court finds justification for each procedure.

Among other considerations, the NAMUA protocols suggest, in relevant part, that MUA procedures are clinically justifiable when a patient has responded favorably to conservative, non- invasive chiropractic treatment but continues to experience intractable (i.e., hard to control) pain that interferes with his or her lifestyle. NAMUA protocols further recommend that manipulative procedures be utilized in a clinical setting for 2 to 6 weeks prior to recommending the procedure. Finally, as correctly noted by Spostas, the protocols also consider the MUA candidate’s history of severe pain, spinal adhesions, voluntary muscle contracture or muscle spasms, among other symptoms.

In his peer review dated April 4, 2017, Spostas noted that Barrera received her initial chiropractic examination on September 8, 2016, approximately 9 days after the underlying August 30, 2016 vehicular accident that is believed to have caused her injuries.1 She was examined, at that time, by chiropractor Arthur Schoenfeld, who recorded complaints of headache, dizziness, upper middle and lower back pain, and left sided neck pain radiating to the left shoulder. Range of motion in her cervical and thoracolumbar spine was found to have decreased with pain, and positive findings were noted in the cervical compression, heel walk, SLR (straight leg raise) and Kemp’s tests. On November 2, 2016, approximately 8 weeks after the vehicular incident and 2 weeks beyond the 2 to 6 week preliminary chiropractic period contemplated by the NAMUA protocols, Schoenfeld wrote a Letter of Medical Necessity to State Farm indicating that, while Barrera had demonstrated some responses to physiotherapy, she was still experiencing pain and difficulty performing many daily activities. The letter was used to justify Schoenfeld’s prescription of various medical supplies including a cervical pillow and collar, a car seat support, and a bed board, among other items. The record also reflects that, up to that date, she participated in regular chiropractic adjustments and continued to receive such treatment until just before January 25, 2017, when she first presented at Pro Align Chiropractic, P.C. (“Pro Align”), for evaluation as a candidate for MUA.

At her January 25, 2017 evaluation at Pro Align, Barrera was diagnosed with various pathologies including: displacement of both cervical and lumbar intervertebral discs; cervical, [*3]thoracic, lumbar and sacroiliac segmental dysfunction; cervicobrachial syndrome; cervical radiculitis; and other symptoms related to her shoulder and hip joints. The evaluation also depicted her as experiencing a significant loss of range of motion in all areas, and having reached a “plateau” in her recovery efforts considerably below her maximum medical improvement. Her prognosis was guarded. From this, her first MUA was scheduled for February 12, 2017. The target treatment areas included her cervical, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, hip and shoulder regions.^[FN1]

The first MUA procedure involved manipulation of all parts of her spine and its supporting musculature, and included her shoulders and left hip. Post procedure, she was found to have increased range of motion without significant muscle guarding. In his report, Dipti Patel, D.C. (“Patel”), the chiropractor who performed the MUA, noted that Barrera’s fibro-adhesive conditions were significantly impacted increasing the potential for appropriate neuromuscular re-education and healing. She was instructed to follow up at the surgery center to determine if a second MUA procedure was indicated. In the interim, passive manipulation to the treated areas was prescribed to prevent the reformation of muscular adhesions.

This Court finds that Barrera’s treatment record leading up to January 25, 2017 satisfies the NAMUA considerations justifying the procedure. By the initial MUA date, Barrera had participated in frequent conservative chiropractic sessions and, while experiencing some improvement, was still hampered by pain in her activities daily living. This was true beyond the initial 2 to 6 week conservative manipulation period contemplated by the NAMUA protocols, and the numerous positive findings during her pre-MUA evaluation at Pro Align confirm as much. Furthermore, in keeping with the protocols, Dr. Patel prescribed post-MUA series therapy to prevent the reformation of muscular adhesions, suggesting that adhesions — another justifying factor under the NAMUA protocols — were a complicating factor prior to the procedure. Although further analysis of the treatment record would more robustly justify the initial MUA procedure, it is hardly necessary. In this Court’s view, the procedure was justified. This leaves the question of whether Specialty Surgery’s MUA exceeded the scope of chiropractic practice by including, and billing for, the anesthetized manipulation of Barrera’s left hip and shoulders during the initial MUA. It is this Court’s conclusion that the issue need not be decided here.

New York Education Law § 6551(1) defines the scope of chiropractic practice as follows:

The practice of the profession of chiropractic is defined as detecting and correcting by manual or mechanical means structural imbalance, distortion, or subluxations in the human body for the purpose of removing nerve interference and the effects thereof, where such interference is the result of or related to distortion, misalignment or subluxation of or in the vertebral column.

NY Educ. Law § 6551(1). From this it would appear that the general purpose of chiropractic practice is to correct structural or biomechanical problems within the human body by providing manual or mechanical treatment to the spine. Pertinent here, however, given Specialty Surgery’s failure to call any witnesses, the court is without a medical basis upon which to determine whether the anesthetized manipulation of Barrera’s shoulders and left hip could somehow could have been justifiably brought within the scope of providing treatment to her spine for the purpose of correcting some biomechanical malfunction. Notwithstanding this hurdle, there is ample basis in the record upon which to find that Specialty Surgery should be compensated for the portion of the MUA applied directly to her spine.

An examination of the February 12, 2017 bill submitted by Specialty Surgery to State Farm for the first MUA shows the carrier as being billed $25,000 for the manipulation of Barrera’s spine (Code No. 22505), with additional amounts totaling $44,060 billed for all MUA [*4]treatment provided that day. Given that Specialty Surgery has demanded a total of $5,113.01 for the February 12, 2017 MUA (Index No. 705866-17), upon the medical record in evidence, this court finds ample basis for such compensation for the manipulation of the patient’s cervical, thoracic and lumbosacral spinal regions. Accordingly, justification of the February 25, 2017 (Index No. 705867- 17), and March 4, 2017 (Index No. 705884-17), remains. This court finds that those procedures were also medically justified.

The NAMUA protocols set forth general patient recovery benchmarks to consider prior to performing serial MUA procedures. Generally, the protocols contemplate that a second (or serial) MUA procedure is usually unnecessary when a patient regains and retains 80% or more of normal biomechanical function as a result of the first procedure and post-MUA therapy. However, if the patient regains only 50-70% or less of normal biomechanical function as a result of the first procedure and post-MUA follow up therapy, then a second (or serial) MUA procedure is recommended. While the NAMUA scheme appears to leave biomechanical recovery in the 70- 80% range out of consideration for additional MUA procedures, the protocols ultimately recommend serial MUAs until the patient achieves the 80% or greater biomechanical recovery threshold. With that in view, we turn to the second and third MUA procedures.

On February 25, 2017, the day of Barrera’s second MUA procedure, Barrera presented at Pro Align for a pre-MUA evaluation and was found to have experienced approximately 51%-79% improvement from the first procedure. The evaluation report also noted that she continued to experience chronic pain, adhesions and myofascial pain syndrome. This scenario repeated itself again when she presented at Pro Align for the third and final MUA procedure on March 4, 2017. Hence, according to the NAMUA protocols, as of February 25, 2017, and again on March 4, 2017, Barrera’s recovery fell within the range of justification for the second and third MUA procedures.

As with the February 12, 2017 bill from Specialty Surgery to State Farm, the February 25, 2017, and March 4, 2017 bills each charged $25,000 for the manipulation of Barrera’s spine (Code Nos. 225059 and 22505), with bills totaling $44,060 and $48,030, respectively, for all MUA related services provided on those dates. Given that Specialty Surgery has demanded only $3,821.76 (for February 25, 2017) and $5,113.01 (for March 4, 2017) for the MUA services provided, this Court finds that compensation is warranted in each case.

Accordingly, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff, New York Center for Specialty Surgery, in each of the following matters herein: CV-70566-17; CV-705867- 17; and, CV-705884-17.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 14, 2021
Hon. John A. Howard-Algarin, J.C.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:All references to the record would have included citations to specific pages therein had counsel complied with the court’s trial part rules and submitted documentary evidence with Bates stamped identifiers.

CV-706933-20/RI

Sanders Barshay Grossman, LLC for Plaintiff;

Burke, Conway & Stiefeld For Defendant

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

Papers Numbered

Amended Notice of Motion and Affirmation/Affidavit annexed 1-2

Affirmation in Opposition 3

Affirmation in Reply 4

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is as follows:

Plaintiff, Happy Apple Medical Services, PC (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), as assignee of Mario Eustache (hereinafter, “Assignor”), commenced this action against the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Defendant”), to recover assigned first-party No-Fault benefits for medical treatment provided to Assignor.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff submitted opposition to Defendant’s motion, and Defendant submitted an affirmation in reply. The motion was deemed submitted and decision was reserved.

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying causes of action. Specifically, Defendant argues that as the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”) has found the underlying action to be a work-related accident, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over all [*2]workers’ compensation claims. Defendant argues this claim is not covered under its policy.^[FN1] Therefore, Defendant argues, the complaint must be dismissed because the underlying accident was determined by the Board to be work-related.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s policy exclusion defense should be precluded because the defense was not timely raised by a denial of the bill within 30 days of the submission of the claim (see Ins. Law 5106(a); 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c)). The Plaintiff argues that there are only four exceptions to preclusion all involving “lack of insurance coverage” and since the exclusion due to a work-related injury is not one of them, Defendant’s motion should fail. The Plaintiff does not make any argument regarding the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court.

Discussion

Defendant is correct in noting that the Board has jurisdiction over the determination of whether an accident occurred within the scope of a claimant’s employment (O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219, 228 [1976]). The Court of Appeals has ruled that the Board has “the primary jurisdiction, but not necessarily exclusive jurisdiction, in factual contexts concerning compensability.” (Liss v Trans Auto Sys, 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]). “When the question is purely one of fact, the Workers’ Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue and it is only when the issue involves statutory construction that the trial court may hear the issue” (Gyory v Radgowsk, 89 AD2d 867, 869 [2d Dept 1982]). Therefore, it is outside this Court’s jurisdiction to make a factual determination as to the eligibility of a claimant for workers’ compensation benefits.

However, Plaintiff has not asked this Court to make such a determination. The causes of action before this Court seek monetary damages relating to unpaid invoices and attorneys’ fees in accordance with a no-fault insurance policy allegedly issued by Defendant to Assignor. This determination is squarely within the Civil Court’s jurisdiction (NY City Civ Ct Act § 202). The fact that the Assignor’s accident was deemed to have been work-related does not divest the Civil Court of its jurisdiction. Rather the Board’s determination is relevant to the extent that “workers’ compensation benefits serve as an offset against first-party benefits payable under no-fault as compensation for ‘basic economic loss'” (Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 268 [2d Dept 1991]; Ins. Law § 5102(b)(2)).

Defendant’s motion mischaracterizes the underlying action as a claim for payment under a workers’ compensation insurance policy, rather than, as pleaded, for payment of benefits pursuant to a no-fault insurance policy. Therein lies the error of Defendant’s argument. The law provides the Defendant with a valid defense to such a Civil Court action — an exclusion from the no-fault insurance policy from payment in instances of a work-related accident.

The Insurance Law and corresponding regulations require the service of a timely denial of the payment of the bill upon the health care provider within 30 days to exercise the exclusion (Ins. Law § 5106(a); 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c)). Defendant has failed not only to present any policy documentation but also a denial form, timely or otherwise. As such, that issue is not before the [*3]Court. Any discussion or argument pertaining to Defendant’s denial and issues of preclusion are not applicable to the current motion.

The sole question before this Court in the instant motion is whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The matter before the Court is not a determination of a workers’ compensation claim, but rather a claim for reimbursement under a no-fault automobile insurance policy. The availability of workers’ compensation benefits can serve as a defense to the No-Fault claim, but it does not invalidate the Civil Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the causes of action as it relates to the reimbursement and defenses under the no-fault insurance policy. The Defendant’s motion makes no other argument to justify the dismissal of the complaint other than alleging a lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the no-fault insurance claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion is hereby denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 13, 2021

Staten Island, New York

Hon. Robert J. Helbock, Jr.

Judge, Civil Court

Footnotes

Footnote 1:While New York law permits No-Fault policies to exclude payment for treatment of work-related injuries (11 NYCRR 65-3.16), the Defendant did not offer a copy of the no-fault insurance contract containing such an exclusion. However, the Court assumes the exclusion applies as a matter of the regular industry practice. However, this assumption, without admissible evidence, does not factor into the Court’s decision.

CV-724222-19/QU

Plaintiff’s Counsel:
Gabriel & Shapiro, L.L.C.
2 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 302
Rockville Centre, NY 11570

Defendant’s Former Counsel:
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP
445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 420
Melville, New York, 11747

Defendant’s Current Counsel:
Callinan & Smith, LLP
3361 Park Avenue, Suite 104
Wantagh, NY 11793

Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment:

PapersNumbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion seeking summary judgment and Supporting1

Affirmation dated as of January 10, 2020 (“Motion”) and entered by the court on

February 3, 2020.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Cross-Motion seeking summary judgment and Affirmation2

in Support dated as of October 16, 2020 (“Cross-Motion”) and electronically filed

with the court on October 19, 2020.

Defendant’s Affirmation to Cross-Motion dated as of October 20, 2020 (“Reply”) and

electronically filed with the court on October 20, 2020.3

Background

In a summons and complaint filed on October 24, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendant insurance company to recover a total of $2,034.58 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for chiropractic services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Martinez throughout 2018, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest. The First cause of action was for recovery of a $92.48 bill for services provided May 8 to 9, 2018 (“First Bill“). The Third cause of action was for recovery of a $458.16 bill for services provided June 18 to July 11, 2018 (“Second Bill“). The Fifth cause of action was for recovery of a $285.94 bill for services provided April 2 to 13, 2018 (“Third Bill“). The Seventh cause of action was for recovery of a $226.96 bill for services provided July 17 to 27, 2018 (“Fourth Bill“). The Ninth cause of action was for recovery of a $138.72 bill for services provided September 6 to 14, 2018 (“Fifth Bill“). The Eleventh cause of action was for recovery of a $231.20 bill for services provided August 10 to 27, 2018 (“Sixth Bill“). The Thirteenth cause of action was for recovery of a $92.48 bill for services provided August 2 to 3, 2018 (“Seventh Bill“). The Fifteenth cause of action was for recovery of a $369.92 bill for services provided April 17 to May 2, 2018 (“Eighth Bill“). The Seventeenth cause of action was for recovery of a $138.72 bill for services provided June 11 to 15, 2018 (“Ninth Bill“). The Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth causes of action sought recovery of attorneys’ fees for each of the separate bills.

Defendant now moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to attend scheduled Examinations Under Oath (“EUO“) and failed to timely submit a claim to Defendant, or alternatively for judgment that Defendant established its prima facie case. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on its claims against Defendant. After [*2]various adjournments, the motion papers were deemed to be fully submitted and subsequently assigned to this Court during the coronavirus pandemic. An oral argument by both parties was conducted by this Court on March 17, 2021.

Discussion and Decision

Insurers must pay or deny No-Fault benefit claims within thirty (30) “days of receipt of proof of the claim” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 501 [2015]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR § 65-3.8[c]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]). Failure to establish timely denial of claim precludes insurer from offering evidence of its defense to non-payment (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d at 506; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 281-82). Noncompliance with an insurance policy provision requiring disclosure through an examination under oath is a failure of a condition precedent to an insurer’s duty to indemnify (IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2d Dept 2014]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]) and is a material policy breach precluding recovery of proceeds under the insurance policy (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 756 [2d Dept 2020]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2014]). Regarding notification of the EUO, the insurer must present proof of the actual mailing or its standard office practices that ensure notices “are properly addressed and mailed” (Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d 693, 694 [2d Dept 2016]; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc., 127 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2d Dept 2015]). An insurer must request verification within ten (10) days after receipt of claim (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[a], see Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d 603, 604 [2d Dept 2011]).

In the instant matter, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to timely pay or deny nine (9) separate bills for chiropractic services provided from April to September 2018. Defendant denied receiving Plaintiff’s Second Bill. With respect to the eight (8) remaining bills, Defendant maintained that it properly denied the claims based on those bills because Plaintiff failed to attend EUOs.

Plaintiff’s Second Bill/Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action

Regarding Plaintiff’s Second Bill in the amount of $458.16 for chiropractic services rendered from June 18 to July 11, 2018 that Plaintiff prayed for in its third cause of action, Defendant denied receiving the bill. Defendant presented an affidavit sworn January 7, 2020, in which Overly, an employee of IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, which works for Defendant, attested in detail to Defendant’s office practices and procedures for processing claims it received and that a records search revealed no bill for $458.16 for service performed from June [*3]18 to July 11, 2018. Here, such evidence sufficiently demonstrated that Defendant did not receive Plaintiff’s claim in the amount of $458.16 (Bright Med. Supply Co. v Tri State Consumer Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51122[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2013]; Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 158[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50431[U] *3 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]). In opposition, Plaintiff presented the affirmation of Moroff, a partner in Plaintiff’s law firm, who attested to the firm’s standard procedures for processing bills it received and submitting them to the insurer for payment (see Cross-Motion, Aff, of John E. Fagan Ex. B). An affidavit of mailing attached to Moroff’s affirmation indicated that the bill was mailed on July 24, 2018. Contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff properly used an affirmation from Moroff, instead of an affidavit because Moroff is not a party to this action (see Finger v Saal, 56 AD3d 606, 607 [2d Dept 2008]; Samuel & Weininger v Belovin & Franzblau, 5 AD3d 466, 466 [2d Dept 2004]; Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50148[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]). Here, Plaintiff has raised factual issues regarding its timely submission of the Second Bill (BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 50 Misc 3d 147[A]; 2016 NY Slip Op 50318[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]; Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 146[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50307[U] *1 [App. Term 2d Dept 2016]), and such issue must be resolved at trial.

Plaintiff’s Third Bill and Eighth Bill/Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fifteenth Causes of Action

Defendant acknowledged receiving Plaintiff’s Third Bill in the amount of $285.94, on May 12, 2018, and Plaintiff’s Eighth Bill in the amount of $369.92, on June 4, 2018, which respectively constituted Plaintiff’s fifth and fifteenth causes of action. Although Defendant sent two separate explanations of benefits dated May 24, 2018 and June 6, 2018, which advised Plaintiff that payment was being delayed pending an EUO, this Court finds that these explanations of benefit are insufficient to delay payment or denial because they did not request verification (Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 17 [2d Dept 1999]; Parsons Med. Supply Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 148[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51649[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]; Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51338[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]; Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52191[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2008]). Therefore, regarding the Third Bill and Eighth Bill respectively received on May 12 and June 4, 2018, Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s claims based on these bills on July 27, 2018 was untimely (Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d at 604; Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 90, 92 [App Term 2d Dept 2012]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046-47 [2d Dept 2009]; Parsons Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51649 *2). As a result, Defendant is not entitled to a judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s fifth and fifteenth causes of action based on the Third Bill and Eighth Bill respectively.

Plaintiff’s First Bill, Fourth Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Seventh Bill, and Ninth Bill/

Regarding the remaining six (6) bills, i.e., Plaintiff first, fourth, fifth, six, seventh and ninth bills, which constituted Plaintiff’s first, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and seventeenth causes of action, Defendant presented an affidavit sworn January 10, 2020, in which Callinan, a partner in Defendant’s counsel’s office, attested to the standard mailing procedures for requests for EUOs and that counsel’s office mailed a request to Sayyed and his attorney on June 5, 2018, scheduling an EUO for June 21, 2017 (see Motion, Aff. of Michael Soriano, Ex. E). Defendant also presented a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel dated June 18, 2018, which acknowledged receipt of the June 5, 2018 scheduling letter (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. K). Here, such evidence established Defendant’s timely submission of the EUO request (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1. The transcripts of the EUO proceedings (see Motion, Soriano Aff., Ex. I and J) further constituted adequate proof of Sayyed’s nonappearance (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1). In addition, Defendant established the timeliness of the second EUO request letter dated June 26, 2018, which scheduled the EUO for July 13, 2018 (see Motion, Soriano Aff. Ex. F), after Sayyed failed to attend the first EUO (11 NYCRR § 65-3.6[b]; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 58 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51835[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]). Since Defendant received the remaining bills after the request for EUO was sent to Plaintiff, the EUO request letter dated June 5, 2018 tolled Defendant’s time to pay or deny the claims (Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Esurance, 57 Misc 3d 146[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51466[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v ELRAC, Inc., 56 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50923[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] *2).

Overly’s affidavit established Defendant’s standard mailing procedures designed to ensure timely mailing and the timely denial of Plaintiff’s claim within thirty (30) days after the second scheduled EUO (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; Tam Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] *1; First Class Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50593[U] *2; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1). Therefore, Defendant’s denial of these claims on July 27, 2018 was timely (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757, see 11 NYCRR §§ 65-3.5[a]; 65-3.5[a]). Here, Defendant’s evidence that it twice requested EUOs from Sayyed, that he failed to appear both times and that Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim on that basis satisfied Defendant’s burden of establishing a material policy breach by Plaintiff (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d at 757; IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d at 1007; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597). As a result, Defendant has met its initial burden of demonstrating that Sayyed failed to attend duly scheduled EUOs and that Defendant timely denied the claims [*4]based on the First Bill, the Fourth Bill, the Fifth Bill, the Six Bill, the Seventh Bill and the Ninth Bill, which were embodied in Plaintiff’s first, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and seventeenth causes of action.

In opposition, Plaintiff contended that factual issues existed precluding Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. While Plaintiff contended that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s objections to the EUOs, here, such a response is not required to establish noncompliance with a scheduled EUO (see Interboro v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597; 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 69 Misc 3d 142[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51364[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2020]; Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 62 Misc 3d 145[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]). Also, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Defendant was not required to provide “objective reasons for requesting [an] EUO” (21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 51364[U] *1; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51518[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017], see New Way Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 136[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51158[U]*2 [App Term 2d Dept 2019]; Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U] *2).

Since Plaintiff failed to raise factual issues regarding Defendant’s defense, Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s first, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and seventeenth causes of action.

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion

Regarding the Cross-Motion, Plaintiff bore the burden to show it submitted the statutory claim forms indicating the fact and amount of the loss sustained and “that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue” (NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2d Dept 2011]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC Inc., 12 Misc 3d 119, 120 [App Term 2d Dept 2006]). Although Plaintiff presented no evidence supporting its Cross-Motion, Defendant’s denial of claim forms constituted prima facie evidence that Defendant received Plaintiff’s claims (Lopes v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 127[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51279[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2009]).

With respect to Plaintiff’s fifth and fifteenth causes of action, as addressed above, Defendant failed to toll the time to pay or deny the claims based on Plaintiff’s Third Bill and Eighth Bill in the respective amount of $285.94 and $369.92. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment on its claims based on these bills in the total amount of $655.86, plus statutory interest (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d at 604; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d at 1046-47; Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 52191[U] *1-2).

With respect to Plaintiff’s third cause of action, as noted above, factual issues remain regarding Defendant’s receipt of the Second Bill in the amount of $458.16. Such issue must be resolved at trial.

Finally, regarding the remaining six (6) bills alleged in Plaintiff’s first, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and seventeenth causes of action, given Defendant’s unrebutted evidence of its timely submission of EUO request letters, Sayyed’s failure to attend the two scheduled EUOs, and Defendant’s timely denial of Plaintiff’s claims on that basis, this Court dismisses these causes of action as set forth above. Plaintiff is not entitled to a payment for the First Bill, Fourth Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Seventh Bill, and Ninth Bill.

It is noted that in its second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth causes of action, Plaintiff improperly pleaded claims for attorneys’ fees based on each individual bill. It is well established by case law that in No-Fault actions, attorneys’ fees are calculated based on a single insured, not on each bill submitted by a provider (LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 [2009]; A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins., 26 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50264[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010]). Although the Court finds that Defendant failed to timely pay or deny the claims under the fifth and fifteenth causes of action, which entitles Plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees (Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.9[a]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 278), given that Plaintiff’s third cause of action must proceed to trial, determination of attorneys’ fees is premature.

IV.Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent of dismissing Plaintiff’s first, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and seventeenth causes of action based on Plaintiff’s First Bill, Fourth Bill, Fifth Bill, Sixth Bill, Seventh Bill and Ninth Bill, but is otherwise denied, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion is granted to the extent of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on Plaintiff’s fifth and fifteenth causes of action based on the Third Bill and Eighth Bill in the total amount of $655.86 plus statutory interest, but is otherwise denied, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s third cause of action to recover the Second Bill in the amount of $458.16 for services provided June 18 through July 11, 2018, shall proceed to trial; and that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees shall be decided during or upon the conclusion of the trial.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: April 13, 2021
Queens County Civil Court
_____________________________________
Honorable Li, J.C.C.

CV-730032-18/KI

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), New York City, for Barakat P.T., P.C., plaintiff. Law Offices of Rachel Perry, Lake Success (Edward R. Johannes of counsel), for Progressive Insurance Company, defendant.

BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2017, plaintiff’s assignor, Jerrod Bratcher, was allegedly injured in an automobile accident (see plaintiff’s exhibit 4 in support of motion, complaint ¶ 2).

On April 27, 2017, plaintiff allegedly provided the following services to Bratcher:

(see plaintiff’s exhibit 3 in support of motion, NF-3 form dated 5/16/17). According to Amro S Mohamed, P.T., the sole proprietor of plaintiff, the bill was mailed to the insurance carrier on May 16, 2017 (see plaintiff’s exhibit 2 in support of motion, Mohamed aff ¶¶ 1, 21).

On May 30, 2017, defendant allegedly denied the bill in its entirety. According to the Explanation of Benefits (EOB), the amount allowed was $103.95, based on the Workers’ Compensation fee schedule, and the amount fell within a deductible/copay (see defendant’s exhibit C in support of cross motion, NF-10 form and EOB).

The instant action

On July 13, 2018, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, with interest plus attorneys’ fees (see plaintiff’s exhibit 4 in support of motion, summons and complaint). On August 1, 2018, defendant allegedly answered the complaint (see defendant’s exhibit A in support of cross motion, answer and affidavit of service).

DISCUSSION

“On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. If the moving party produces the required evidence, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action”

(Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 NY3d 167, 175 [2019] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).

Defendant generally argues that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff billed in excess of the fee schedule, and defendant was reimbursed pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation fee schedule (see affirmation of defendant’s counsel ¶¶ 6-10 ^[FN1] ). Defendant contends that the allowable amount was properly applied to the assignor’s deductible (id. ¶¶ 11-12).

A. Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule

“Insurance Law § 5108 provides, with some exceptions, that charges for services covered under Insurance Law § 5102 ‘shall not exceed the charges permissible under the schedules prepared and established by the chairman of the workers’ compensation board for industrial accidents'” (Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Avanguard Med. Group, PLLC, 127 AD3d 60, 63 [2d Dept 2015], affd 27 NY3d 22 [2016], quoting Insurance Law § 5108 [a]).

To meet its prima facie burden that it fully paid the claims in accordance with the fee schedule, the defendant must submit an affidavit from a no-fault/litigation examiner or from a professional medical coder/biller (Merrick Med., P.C. v A Cent. Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 142[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51264[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 141[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51526[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018][certified medical coder and biller]; Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 133[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50946[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [professional coder]).

The affidavit must show that defendant properly applied the appropriate relative value units and conversion factor assigned to the CPT code(s) for the services rendered in calculating the amount plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed (see Renelique, 53 Misc 3d 141[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51526[U]; Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 145[A], 2017 NY Slip Op [*2]51450[U], [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [conversion factor not provided]; see also Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 135[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51808[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017] [defendant failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor]; Liberty Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 133[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51409[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016] [defendant failed to demonstrate correct conversion factor was applied]). Lastly, the applicable portion of the fee schedule must be annexed to defendant’s papers (Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52199[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Here, defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden demonstrating that plaintiff billed in excess of the fee schedule. Defendant’s counsel argues that, based on an examination of plaintiff’s bill, plaintiff, a physical therapist, used a conversion factor of 8.45, which is reserved for medical doctors, instead of using the conversion factor for physical therapists (affirmation of defendant’s counsel ¶ 8). Defendant’s counsel asserts that the correct conversion factor for plaintiff is 7.70 (id. ¶ 7). However, defendant did not submit an affidavit from a no-fault/litigation examiner or from a professional medical coder/biller, stating that a physical therapist may only bill for services using the conversion factor for physical therapists, or that a physical therapist may not bill for services using the conversion factor for physical medicine, which is 8.45. Neither did defendant’s counsel cite to any ground rules from the fee schedule nor any statutory or case law authority to support his contention. Defendant therefore failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor in calculating the reimbursement rate (Laga v GEICO Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 127[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51713[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]).

B. Reduction of the claim due to a policy deductible

Although defendant did not demonstrate that the bill was properly reduced in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation fee schedule, defendant also argues that the policy under which no-fault benefits are being claimed had a $200 deductible. Insofar as the amount of the bill was within the deductible amount, the court must reach defendant’s alternative argument that the bill was validly denied due to the policy deductible.

To meet its prima burden that the bill was properly denied due to application of a deductible, defendant must submit affidavits and documents establishing that that the automobile insurance policy in question had a personal injury protection deductible, and that the claim at issue was timely denied due to said deductible (Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Indem. Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 142[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50204[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 135[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50148[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

1. Policy Deductible

Here, defendant submitted a copy of the policy declarations page, which indicates that the automobile policy that defendant issued to the named insured, Jerrod Bratcher, in effect at the time of the accident, has “Mandatory Personal Injury Protection” up to $50,000 for each person, with a $200 deductible (see defendant’s exhibit E in support of motion, Declarations Page at 2). Plaintiff did not raise any objections to this document (see affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel in further support of motion and in opposition to cross motion ¶¶ 14-52).

[*3] 2. Timely Denial

“[A]n insurer must either pay or deny a claim for motor vehicle no-fault benefits, in whole or in part, within 30 days after an applicant’s proof of claim is received. An insurer can extend the 30-day period within which to pay or deny a claim by making a timely demand for further verification of the claim”

(Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 864 [2d Dept 2009] [internal citations omitted]). According to defendant’s counsel, the denial was mailed on May 30, 2017 (see affirmation of defendant’s counsel ¶ 11 [table]).

Generally, “proof that an item was properly mailed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the item was received by the addressee” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33, 46 [2013], affd 25 NY3d 498 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). A party can establish proof of mailing “through evidence of actual mailing (e.g., an affidavit of mailing or service) or—as relevant here—by proof of a sender’s routine business practice with respect to the creation, addressing, and mailing of documents of that nature” (CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, —NY3d&mdash, 2021 NY Slip Op 01933, *3 [2021]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 547 [2d Dept 2006], quoting Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680 [2d Dept 2001]; accord American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2013]).

“Actual mailing may be established by a proper certificate of mailing or by an affidavit of one with personal knowledge” (J.M. Chiropractic Servs., PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51348[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012] [internal citation, emendations and quotation marks omitted]). For proof by office practice, “the office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that the item is always properly addressed and mailed” (Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d 693, 694 [2d Dept 2016], citing Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 830 [1978]; Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 229-30 [1st Dept 2004]).

Here, to establish proof of mailing, defendant submitted an affidavit from Tamu Jordan, a Litigation Representative employed by defendant since June 1999 (see defendant’s exhibit B in support of cross motion, Jordan aff ¶ 1), and copies of the denial of claim form and a mailing report (see defendant’s exhibit C in support of motion), which Jordan established were business records (Jordan aff ¶ 6).

According to Jordan, the claims representative electronically creates the document to be mailed, which includes the mailing address, and places the document into a digital file in a centralized computer for mailing (see Jordan aff ¶ 3 [l]). Once the claims representative creates the documents to be mailed, the centralized computer system generates the document with the mailing address (id. ¶ 3 [n]). Documents are printed from the centralized computer system at mailing facilities located in either Highland Heights, Ohio or Colorado Springs, Colorado (see id. ¶ 3 [l]). Once printed, an automated mail machine inserts the document into a windowed envelope so the mailing address is visible (id. ¶ 3 [n]).

Documents mailed in the same windowed envelope are identified with the same Envelope ID, and the sixth and seventh digit of the Envelop ID indicate the facility from which the documents were mailed (id. ¶ 3 [m]). If the sixth and seventh digits are 00 or 02, the documents were mailed from Highland Heights, Ohio; if the sixth and seventh digits are 01, the documents were mailed from Colorado Springs, Colorado (id. ¶ 3 [m]).

In Highland Heights, Ohio, mail is picked up by a United States Postal Service by 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday; in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the mail is picked up by a United States Postal Service by 1:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through Friday (id. ¶¶ 3[o]-[p]). As the mail is placed into the custody and control the United States Postal Service, information on a Medical Payments Proof of Mailing Report is contemporaneously captured (id. ¶ 3 [a]). The information cannot be altered once it is captured in defendant’s computer system, and the data on the report is compiled the same date that the documents were mailed (id. ¶ 3 [b]).

For denials, two copies are mailed, along with two EOBs (id. ¶ 3 [g]). The information appearing in the NF-10 form and the EOB regarding the recipient, recipient address, patient, dates of service, and the amount billed is obtained from the bill(s) submitted by plaintiff (id. ¶ 3 [i]).

Here, defendant established prima facie proof of mailing of the denial on May 31, 2017, in accordance with a standard office practice or procedure (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2d Dept 2001]; Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). The Medical Payments Proof of Mailing Report indicates that two NF-10s and two EOBs were mailed to plaintiff on May 31, 2017, with Envelope ID CMBPI02Q00566 (see defendant’s exhibit C in support of cross motion). Based on the sixth and seventh digits of the Envelope ID on the mailing report and on Jordan’s affidavit, the denial was therefore mailed from Highland Heights, Ohio.

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to proof of mailing are unavailing.

“[T]o rebut the presumption, there must be proof of a material deviation from an aspect of the office procedure that would call into doubt whether the notice was properly mailed, impacting the likelihood of delivery to the intended recipient. Put another way, the crux of the inquiry is whether the evidence of a defect casts doubt on the reliability of a key aspect of the process such that the inference that the notice was properly prepared and mailed is significantly undermined. Minor deviations of little consequence are insufficient”

(CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, —NY3d—, 2021 NY Slip Op 01933, *3 [2021]). Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the affidavit stated Jordan’s current title as Litigation Representative (Jordan aff ¶ 1). Additionally, Jordan established personal knowledge of the standard mailing procedures in both Ohio and Colorado, based on training that Jordan received from the facilities at both Ohio and Colorado (id. ¶ 2).

Acupuncture Prima Care, P.C. v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (17 Misc 3d 1135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52273[U] [Dist Ct, Nassau County 2007]), which plaintiff cites, is distinguishable.

There, to establish proof of mailing, the defendant submitted two affidavits—an affidavit from a claims representative from the defendant’s office in Ballston Spa, New York and an affidavit from a claims support supervisor from the defendant’s office in Melville New York. The claims representative described the procedure for generating the denial of claim forms, which were then sent to Claims Support Services personnel for processing (id. at *2). The affidavit from the Claims Support Services Supervisor stated, in essence, that the generated denial of claim forms are retrieved from a printer, placed in an envelope, and picked up by a courier who delivers the envelope to the United States Postal Service (id. at *2-3).

The court in Acupuncture Prima Care, P.C. ruled, “while this may describe a ‘standard office practice and procedure,’ it does not describe one “used to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed” (id. at *3 [internal citation omitted]). The court reasoned that the procedure described did not contain enough safeguards to “take into account the possibility that an item of mail might get misplaced or lost anywhere between the CSA pool and the United States Post Office” (id.) The court also faulted the affiants for not indicating the basis for their knowledge that the office practice and procedure was followed, and the affiants failed to indicate that they were familiar with the defendant’s office practices and procedures when the first of the denials were allegedly mailed (id. at *3-4). Finally, the court indicated that neither of the affiants (who were in Ballston Spa and Melville) indicated from which office the denials were allegedly mailed, when the denials bore an address from Parsippany, New Jersey (id.).

Here, unlike the affiants in Acupuncture Prima Care, P.C., Jordan established personal knowledge of the standard mailing procedures in both Ohio and Colorado, based on training that Jordan received from the facilities at both Ohio and Colorado (Jordan aff ¶ 2). It is part of Jordan’s duties to ensure compliance with those procedures (id. ¶ 5). Unlike the affidavits in Acupuncture Prima Care, P.C., which did not state the office from which the denials were issued, Jordan provided information about the Envelope ID to establish that the denial was issued from Highland Heights, Ohio. In any event, the same court which decided Acupuncture Prima Care, P.C. acknowledged that its prior cases were no longer good law in light of St. Vincent’s Hospital of Richmond v Government Employees Insurance Co. (50 AD3d 1123 [2d Dept 2008]) (see Uniondale Chiropractic Off. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51687[U] [Dist Ct, Nassau County 2008]).

Defendant’s copies of the NF-3 Form that plaintiff submitted to defendant are date-stamped “Received Date: 05/22/2017” (see defendant’s exhibit C in support of motion), and plaintiff does not dispute that defendant received the bills on May 22, 2017. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the NF-3 Form was received on May 16, 2017, the same date on the NF-3 Form, defendant’s denial on May 31, 2017 was well within 30 days of defendant’s receipt of the bill.

Therefore, defendant met its prima facie burden that the claim was properly denied because the amount allowed was within the $200 policy deductible (Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C., 54 Misc 3d 142[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50204[U]; Innovative Chiropractic, P.C., 26 Misc 3d 135[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50148[U]).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact warranting denial of summary judgment.^[FN2]

Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

“A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission to the defendant of a claim form, proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and proof either that the defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or that the defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law”

(Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Once plaintiff meets its prima facie burden, the burden shifts to defendant “to show that it has a meritorious defense and that such a defense is not precluded” (Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 146[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50850[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013] [internal citation omitted]).

Here, any deficiencies in plaintiff’s proof of mailing were cured by defendant’s submission of the denial of claim form in defendant’s motion papers, which admitted receipt of the bill (Bob Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 135[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51434[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; see Oleg Barshay, DC, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74, 75 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

However, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor against defendant is denied. As discussed above, defendant timely denied the bill on the ground that the amount sought was within a $200 deductible.

CONCLUSION

Upon the foregoing cited papers, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor (Motion Seq. No. 001) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (Motion Seq. No. 002) is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed, with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendant’s favor accordingly.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: April 9, 2021

New York, New York

ENTER:

RICHARD TSAI, J.
Judge of the Civil Court

Footnotes

Footnote 1:The paragraphs in defendant’s affirmation in opposition to the motion and in support of the cross motion are misnumbered. The paragraphs are numbered sequentially from 1 through 11, but the paragraphs that follow are numbered 6 through 12. The citation here refers to latter numbering.

Footnote 2:As defendant points out, plaintiff’s affirmation in further support of motion and in opposition to defendant’s cross motion was purportedly served on January 14, 2020, past the December 26, 2019 agreed-upon deadline for opposition to cross motion (see defendant’s exhibit A in reply). However, the court will consider these papers, in the absence of any demonstrable prejudice to defendant (see Lawrence v Celtic Holdings, LLC, 85 AD3d 874, 875 [2d Dept 2011] [“Supreme Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in considering the plaintiff’s untimely opposition papers inasmuch as the defendants were not prejudiced thereby”]).

CV- 704318-19/NY

John E. Fagan, Esq.
Restorative Chiropractic Solutions

Dianne M. Galluzzo, Esq. and Michael A. Soriano
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

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

Papers/Numbered

Notices of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1

Answering Affidavits and Notice of Cross-Motion 2

Replying Affirmation and Opposition to Cross-Motion 3

Exhibits

Email Correspondence 4

Other

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff medical provider, Restorative Chiropractic Solutions, PC, brings this action against insurer defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to its assignor, Lourdes Clyne (“plaintiff assignor”). Defendant makes the instant motion for summary judgment based on its denials of the claims. The bulk of the denials — three out of five of them — allege material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy. Defendant asks that if this court does not grant summary judgment on a proper denial of material misrepresentation, that it determine its denials were at a minimum timely. Plaintiff [*2]opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment.

Plaintiff assignor was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 14, 2017, and sought medical treatment. This action seeks reimbursement for five claims corresponding to dates of service between August 1, 2017 to September 7, 2017, totaling $505.98. Defendant supplied the following chart that provides information relevant to its request for verification and denials:

Plaintiff assignor acquired the policy with a residential address in Florida. The subject motor vehicle accident occurred in New York. Defendant’s investigation of the claims prompted questions about plaintiff assignor’s residency and principal garaging location of the insured vehicle (Galluzo Aff., ¶¶ 18-19). Defendant mailed verification request letters to plaintiff seeking an examination under oath (“EUO”) of plaintiff assignor to ascertain if there was a material misrepresentation in procurement of the policy (Galluzo Aff., Exh. E).

The EUO was held on November 3, 2017 (Galluzo Aff., Exh. G). Plaintiff assignor testified that at the time of the subject accident she resided in Brooklyn, New York, and principally garaged the insured vehicle there as well (id.; Galluzo Aff., ¶¶ 20 — 22 ). In fact, plaintiff assignor stated that the subject vehicle never entered the state of Florida (Galluzo Aff., Exh. G, p 44). Defendant claims that had it known plaintiff assignor resided in New York and would principally garage the subject vehicle there, it would not have issued the policy (Galluzo Aff., ¶ 22). Defendant issued Denial of Claim Forms (“NF-10s”) on September 12, 2017, and November 27, 2017 (Galluzo Aff., Exh. D).

DISCUSSION

The movant on a motion for summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). CPLR 3212(b) provides that a summary judgment motion must be supported by an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, as well as other admissible evidence (see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384-85 [2005]). Once such a showing is made, “the burden shifts to the party [*3]opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986], citing Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562).

The no-fault insurance scheme is designed to provide a quick resolution of the reimbursement of claims, avoid litigation, and incentivize an insurer to seek verification of a claim, deny it, or pay it in short order (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 506-07 [2015]; Matter of Med. Socy. of State v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 [2003]). The procedure to verify, deny, or pay claims is codified and governed by Insurance Law § 5106(a).

A claimant has 45 days after medical services are rendered to submit claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1). An insurer may request verification of the claim(s) which shall be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]). If the requested verification has not been received within 30 days of the request, the insurer shall make a second request within 10 calendar days and, at the same time, “inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). An insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part within 30 calendar days after proof of the claim(s), including the requested verification, is received (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[c]).

Timeliness of Defendant’s Denials

Even though plaintiff did not submit any evidence, this court searches the record presented and determines that plaintiff’s initial burden is met. There is no dispute that plaintiff timely submitted its claims to defendant. Defendant asks this court to find that it timely denied plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. The claims for dates of service August 1st through August 10th, were timely denied after partial payment was made. As to claims for dates of service from August 11th through September 11th, defendant mailed verification requests and conducted an EUO before denying the claims for a material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy. Plaintiff in its cross motion asks that this court determine that all the claims are overdue and unpaid, and thus, it is deserving of summary judgment.

Defendant submits the affidavits of Cathy Shandera, Lisa Edwards, Matthew Allen, and Paul Kosowski to demonstrate that it timely mailed delay letters, explanations of review, and NF-10s to plaintiff on the dates reflected in the chart above. Defendant claims that the affidavits are sufficient to establish the standard office practices and procedures of mailing these forms. Defendant argued that the contents of its delay letters clearly advised that it was investigating the loss and would request an EUO of plaintiff assignor, which consequently tolled the insurer’s obligation to deny or pay the claims (Soriano Aff. in Reply and Opp, ¶17).

In its opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that defendant’s delay letters failed to toll the time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims (Fagan Aff in Opp, ¶¶ 4, 18). Plaintiff claims the contents of the delay letters do not specifically inform it about what verification is needed other than stating an EUO is required (Fagan Aff in Opp, ¶ 18). Plaintiff also claims that defendant failed to provide copies of the EUO requests to plaintiff (Fagan Aff. in Opp, ¶19). As a result, it argues defendant’s NF-10s were untimely and defendant is precluded from the defense of material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance [*4]policy (Fagan Aff. in Opp, ¶¶ 17, 22).

Defendant’s affidavits and supporting exhibits establish the dates that the subject claims were received. Also, the delay letters to plaintiff were sufficient to toll the 30-day period (Galluzo Aff., Exh. E). Defendant’s additional verification letters were mailed within 15 days after it received plaintiff’s claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a],[b]; Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Best Touch PT, P.C., 162 AD3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2018]). The delay letter was specific enough to communicate to plaintiff that an EUO was required. No further specificity is necessary. If plaintiff required any additional explanation of the delay letter, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to communicate about it (see Canarsie Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 1228(A) [Civ Ct, Kings Cty 2010]; Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 927, 929 [Civ Ct, Kings Cty 2005]).

As to the claim that defendant failed to provide copies of the EUO request to plaintiff, this claim is controverted by the affidavit of Richard C. Aitken who submitted that his law office mailed plaintiff and the assignor an EUO scheduling letter (Galluzo Aff., p 14 [Aitken affidavit], and Exh. F). After the EUO took place on November 3, 2017, defendant denied those claims for material misrepresentation in procurement of the policy.

Defendant’s summary judgment motion established that plaintiff timely mailed the claims and that the claims were denied in a timely manner. As a result, plaintiff cannot establish that the claims are overdue.

Material Misrepresentation

As to the later three claims that were denied on the basis of material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy, defendant refers the court to the affidavit of its underwriter, Dawn Thompson (Galluzo Aff., ¶¶4, 22; Soriano Aff. in Reply and Opp, ¶¶17, 38). Plaintiff correctly points out that no such affidavit was annexed to defendant’s submissions.

The insurer may raise the defense of fraudulent procurement of an insurance policy against health service providers seeking to recover assigned no-fault benefits, but this defense must be supported with sufficient proof that the misrepresentation was material (see Quality Medical Care, PC v Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 1214[A] [Civ Ct, Bronx Cty 2017]). A misrepresentation is material only if the insurer can demonstrate that it would not have issued the insurance policy if the correct information was known (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Fatmir, 89 AD3d 993 [2d Dept 2011]; Novick v Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., 84 AD3d 1330 [2d Dept 2011]; Varshavskaya v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 68 AD3d 855 [2d Dept 2009]). Materiality of a misrepresentation is ordinarily a question for trial (see Kiss Const. NY, Inc. v Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 412, 413-14 [1st Dept 2009]). A court may determine the issue of materiality when evidence is presented that is clear and substantially uncontradicted (see id. citing Process Plants Corp. v Beneficial Natl. Life Ins. Co., 53 AD2d 214 [1st Dept 1976], affd 42 NY2d 928 [1977]).

After reviewing defendant’s 286-page motion, and 14-page reply and opposition to the cross motion, this court emailed the parties on February 22, 2021, for help locating the underwriter’s affidavit. Defendant’s counsel responded by email that the underwriter’s affidavit was not annexed to its papers and any references to the affidavit were “a typographical error.” Without this evidence, defendant cannot establish materiality as a matter of law and therefore, its motion for summary judgment fails.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s cross motion for same are granted to the extent that the issues preserved for trial are the bases for the timely denials. Plaintiff’s bills were timely submitted, as were defendant’s denials. An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff assignor’s misrepresentation about her residence and garaging of the vehicle was material in the procurement of the insurance policy.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: New York, New York
March 12, 2021
______________________
Ilana J. Marcus
Civil Court Judge

CV-734629-18

Plaintiff’s Firm
Richard Rozhik
The Rybak Firm, PLLC
1810 Voorhies Avenue, Suite 7
Brooklyn, New York 11235
Telephone: (718) 975 – 2035
Facsimile: (718) 975 – 2037
rrozhik@rybakfirm.com

Defendant’s Firm
Sabiha Farkas, Esq.
Law Office of Patrick Neglia
200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 207
Melville, New York 11747
(T) (866) 543-0404 x60405
(F) (877) 389-1097
sfarkas@mercuryinsurance.com

Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral arguments on January 8, 2021, pursuant to [*2]CPLR §3212(g), the Decision and Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, is as follows:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE:

In this No-Fault proceeding, Mercury Casualty Insurance Company (“Defendant/Insurer”), appearing through its attorney, pursuant to CPLR §3212(a) moves for Summary Judgment and dismissal of the complaint as barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. In the alternative, Defendant moves for partial Summary Judgment seeking a prima facie finding that it timely and properly denied the bills in dispute. Total Chiropractic, P.C. (“Plaintiff/Provider”), appearing through its attorney, opposes Defendant’s motion. Pursuant to CPLR §3212(a), Plaintiff cross-moves for an Order granting Summary Judgment seeking a prima facie finding that it timely and properly mailed said bills totaling $2,100.00. Plaintiff further submits that the Declaratory Judgment issued against it, was entered on default, the issues have not been litigated therefore collateral estoppel and res judicata do not apply.^[FN1] Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s cross-motion is DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced the instant No-Fault action seeking payment for medical services it rendered to Assignor Santia Louis as a result of alleged injuries related to a July 10, 2015 motor vehicle accident under claim number 2015004500398710.

Defendant commenced the Declaratory Judgment action against Plaintiff on October 6, 2016, in Supreme Court of the State of New York in Orange County, under Index Number EF 004083-2016 seeking an Order that Plaintiff not be entitled to payment for the claims submitted to Defendant. Specifically, Defendant alleged that the Assignor made material misrepresentations about her actual place of residence, which began with the procurement of the policy and continued until the date of motor vehicle accident. The Assignor’s misrepresentation reduced the amount of her policy premiums.^[FN2]

Defendant was granted its application for a Declaratory Judgment on December 5, 2016, where Orange County Supreme Court Justice Vazquez-Doles concluded “…the [Defendant] has no duty to provide any first party benefits coverage to [Assignor], and other interested parties [*3]listed as defendants,” and that Defendant “is entitled to monetary relief against [Assignor]”^[FN3] . Plaintiff failed to file an answer or a motion to renew or re-argue or appeal the Orange County Declaratory Judgment action. On December 13, 2016, Defendant served the Plaintiff the Orange County Declaratory Judgment.^[FN4]

Plaintiff commenced the instant No-Fault action on August 2, 2018 and issue was joined on September 19, 2018.^[FN5]

POSITION OF THE PARTIES:

Defendant avers its Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted in its entirety and Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant relies on the above-referenced Orange County Declaratory Judgement in support of its collateral estoppel and res judicata position since said Declaratory Judgment ordered that Mercury “has no duty to provide any first party benefits coverage to Defendant Santia Louis, and other interested parties listed as Defendants, arising out of the same July 10, 2015 motor vehicle accident as in the instant matter, given the Defendant’s misrepresentation of her place of residence was “material” as defined in Insurance Law §3105(b).” The Defendant also relies on the October 23, 2017 Decision and Order issued by Kings County Civil Court Judge Richard Montelione dismissing with prejudice a related matter bearing the caption Total Chiropractic, P.C. a/a/o Santia Louis, et. al., Index Number 073058/15, that also relied on the same Orange County Declaratory Judgment.

Plaintiff avers that said Declaratory Judgment has no preclusive effect in this case because it applies only to the Assignor and not the service provider Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff points to Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co. where the Appellate Term opined the “Supreme Court order in the declaratory judgment action merely awarded a default judgment to Mercury against [Plaintiff]’s assignor, but did not declare the rights of Mercury as against [Plaintiff], the Supreme Court order cannot be considered a conclusive final determination of [Plaintiff]’s rights and, thus, can have no preclusive effect on the no-fault action at bar.”^[FN6]

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to establish it timely and properly denied Plaintiff’s claim and is now precluded from raising the defense of the Assignor’s material misrepresentations to procure the underlying insurance policy. Plaintiff relies on the Appellate Division holding in Westchester Med. Ctr. v. GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc, which found that “although the defendants contend that they submitted evidence showing that the plaintiff’s assignor misrepresented his state of residence in connection with the issuance of the subject insurance policy, the defendants are precluded from asserting that defense, as a result of their [*4]untimely denial of the claim.”^[FN7] See also Gutierrez v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., holding that “Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant failed to demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defense—that the insurance policy at issue was fraudulently procured—as it failed to establish that it had timely denied plaintiff’s claim on that ground.”^[FN8] Any so-called global or blanket denial of claim form that does not specifically address Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient to avoid the preclusion of the defense.^[FN9]

ANALYSIS:

In deciding a motion for Summary Judgment, the Court’s role is solely to determine if any triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues. Sillman v. Twentierth Centry-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY.2d 395 (1957). Summary Judgment may only be granted if no genuine triable issue of fact is presented. See Gomes v. Courtesy Bus Co., 251 AD2d 625 (2nd Dep’t 1998).

The movant must establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in the movant’s favor and must do so by evidentiary proof in admissible form. See CPLR §3212(b); Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065 (1979). “The proponent of a Summary Judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.” Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1986).

Once such entitlement has been demonstrated by the movant, then the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate by admissible evidence that existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so. Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 (1980). However, the Court of Appeals has made clear that bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine, bona fide issues of fact necessary to defeat such a motion. Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 (1978).

Under New York state law, Default Judgments that have not been vacated, are final orders and can preclude Plaintiff’s claims for payment. See Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607, 871 NYS2d 357 [2nd Dept 2009], revg 2007 WL 6861118 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]. The courts have reasoned that to hold otherwise would destroy or impair the rights or interests established by Default Judgments. See Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307, 165 NE 456 [1929]; Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 134[A], 18 NYS3d 579, 2015 NY Slip Op 51077[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2015] An order specifying the court’s Declaratory Judgment is a conclusive [*5]final determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on default. See Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 48 Misc 3d 85, 16 NYS3d 366 [App. Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists., 2015].

New York State Insurance Law and Regulations 11 NYCRR §65 (“Regulations”) provide that an insurer must pay or deny a claim for No-Fault benefits within thirty days from the receipt of the claim. See Insurance Law§5106 and Regulations §65-3. Defendant must produce legally sufficient evidence that a denial form was generated and mailed within 30-days of the receipt of the claim for No-Fault benefits, or the time was tolled by issuing a proper verification request. Jul Pol Corp. v State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2003 NY Slip 51153 (U) (App. Term, 2nd and 11th Jud. Distrs., July 9, 2003).

The threshold issue hereis whether a default judgment that was not vacated has preclusive effects to permit the Plaintiff to collect payment for a claim submitted as first party benefits under New York’s No-Fault Insurance law. If established, this Court does not have to consider the issue of whether Plaintiff met its prima facie burden warranting payment for medical services or whether the Defendant established the bills in dispute were appropriately denied.

The Court finds that the Orange County Declaratory Judgment is a final Order that names both the Assignor and the Plaintiff and clearly delineates the rights and obligations of the parties.^[FN10] The Declaratory Judgment clearly recites the relief requested by the Defendant and decrees the Defendant “has no duty to provide any first party benefits coverage to [Assignor], and other interested parties listed as defendants.”^[FN11] The Plaintiff and Assignors are named Defendants on the Orange County Declaratory Judgment.^[FN12] In its affidavits, Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether it is covered as a Defendant in the Orange County Declaratory Judgment.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s reliance on Jamaica Wellness Med P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128 (U), as its inapplicable to the instant matter. The default judgment granted in the Jamaica Wellness Medical case was only against the Assignor, as the Plaintiff provider had appeared in the action and served an Answer. The Appellate Term specifically notes that “upon review of the record, we find that, as the March 23, 2016 Supreme Court order in the declaratory judgment action merely awarded a default judgment action to Mercury against Jamaica’s assignor, but did not declare the rights of Mercury as against Jamaica.”^[FN13] Therefore the facts here are distinguishable given that Mercury’s Declaratory Judgment Order entered on default was specifically against both Assignor Santia Louis and Plaintiff provider Total Chiropractic P.C., who were both named in the Orange County Declaratory Judgment action and the case herein, and both failed to respond to the Orange County Declaratory Judgment action.

Finally, the Appellate Division, 2nd Department held that when an accident victim assigns his or her No-Fault claim to a medical provider, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.11, the medical provider as the “assignee ‘stands in the shoes’ of an assignor and thus acquires no greater rights than its assignor.” Long Island Radiology v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763, 830 N.Y.S.2d 192 (2nd Dept. 2007). If a certain defense may be raised by the Defendants against the injured party, it is available as against the provider who accepts the assignments of no-fault benefits. As such, a finding of material misrepresentation of an assignor would be imputed onto the health care provider who takes an assignment of benefits and assumes this risk when accepting the assignment.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the Orange County Declaratory Judgment declared the rights and obligations of both the Plaintiff and the Assignor which found there is no coverage based on the Assignor’s material misrepresentations about her residence. The Court need not consider whether either party established their respective prima facie cases.

The Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Date: February 8, 2021
Brooklyn, New York
Hon. Patria Frias-Colón
Civil Court, Kings County

Footnotes

Footnote 1:On January 11, 2017 Defendant held an inquest against the Assignor wherein Defendant was awarded judgment in the amount of $81,021.15 for damages plus $5,745.50 in court costs and attorney fees. See the Trial Decision in Defendant’s Exhibit G.

Footnote 2:See Defendant’s Exhibit C, Summons and Verified Complaint, Index Number EF 004083-2016 and Exhibit E, Transcript of Santia Louis Examination Under Oath (EUO) dated November 4, 2015.

Footnote 3:See Defendant’s Motion Exhibit A, Judgment, Notice of Entry, and Affidavit of Service.

Footnote 4:Id.

Footnote 5:See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 and 3.

Footnote 6:60 Misc 3d 139(A) (App. Term, 2d Dep’t, 2018).

Footnote 7:80 AD3d 603, 604 (2d Dep’t, 2011).

Footnote 8:47 Misc 3d 152(A) (App. Term, 2d Dep’t, 2015).

Footnote 9:See St. Barnabas Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD3d 996 (2d Dep’t, 2009); A & S Med. P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 170 (1st Dep’t, 2005), affirming 196 Misc 2d 322 (App. Term, 1st Dep’t, 2003).

Footnote 10:See Defendant Motion Exhibit A, Judgment, Notice of Entry, and Affidavit of Service.

Footnote 11:Id.

Footnote 12:Id.

Footnote 13:Jamaica Wellness Med P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128 (U)