Reported in New York Official Reports at EMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50173(U))
| EMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50173(U) [50 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on February 18, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on February 18, 2016
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570955/15
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 7, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered May 7, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.
We sustain the denial of defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party, no-fault action, albeit for reasons other than those stated by Civil Court. Our review of the record reveals that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, since it submitted no evidence from anyone with personal knowledge of plaintiff’s nonappearances at the scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). The affirmation of defendant’s attorney failed to describe or demonstrate “personal knowledge of the office procedures when a claimant failed to appear for [an EUO]” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 [2013]). Nor did the affiant allege that she was assigned to the file and would have conducted the EUO if plaintiff’s principal had appeared (cf. Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]).
In view of our determination, we reach no other issues.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concurDecision Date: February 18, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Pugsley Chiropractic PLLC v Merchants Preferred Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50167(U))
against
Merchants Preferred Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.
Per Curiam.
Order (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, modified to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action on the ground of lack of medical necessity should have been denied. The independent medical examination (IME) report of defendant’s chiropractor/acupuncturist, one Antoinette Perrie, was not in admissible form and should not have been considered. The report erroneously identified Dr. Perrie as a licensed “physician” (see Paul-Austin v McPherson, 111 AD3d 610 [2013]), and was denominated as an affirmation purportedly made under the authority of CPLR 2106. However, neither a chiropractor nor an acupuncturist may affirm the contents of a medical report pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Walker v Village of Ossining, 18 AD3d 867, 868 [2005]; Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 197 [2003]). Nor was the report shown to have been properly “sworn to” before a notary or other authorized official (see Hartley v White, 63 AD3d 1689, 1690 [2009]; Feggins v Fagard, 52 AD3d 1221, 1223 [2008]; see also Gleason, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, C2106:4. P 609-610).
Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, since it failed to establish, prima facie, that its claims were overdue, i.e., that its claims were not “denied or paid” within the prescribed 30-day period (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 507 [2015]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 17, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Sunrise Acupuncture P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50025(U))
| Sunrise Acupuncture P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50025(U) [50 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on January 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on January 13, 2016
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570424/15
against
Kemper Independence Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 5, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 5, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.
We sustain the denial of defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Although defendant asserted that the underlying no-fault claim is precluded by a provision of the subject insurance policy limiting coverage, upon the death of the insured, to the “legal representative of the deceased,” defendant failed to tender evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that the policy contained such a provision (see Marvul v Knecht, 216 AD2d 370, 371 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 710 [1995]).
In view of our disposition, we have no occasion to address whether such policy provision would, as a matter of law, preclude the underlying no-fault claim (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1], [4]; Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Brown, 20 NY2d 542 [1967]), an issue not fully briefed by the parties.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Life Tree Acupuncture P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50023(U))
against
Republic Western Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-provider’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 [2013]). Contrary to plaintiff’s specific contention, defendant was entitled to request the IMEs prior to its receipt of plaintiff’s claim forms on January 10, 2011 (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Steven Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]), and such request complied with the applicable procedures and time-frames set forth in the no-fault regulations (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 19-20 [2005]; cf. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841 [2015]). Moreover, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining chiropractor/acupuncturist and an employee of defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424).
In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or [*2]otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560). Accordingly, when the assignor failed to appear for the requested acupuncture IMEs, defendant had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424), and even though defendant initially denied certain of the claims on different grounds (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v 21st Century Indem. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51850(U))
| Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v 21st Century Indem. Ins. Co. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 51850(U) [50 Misc 3d 127(A)] |
| Decided on December 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on December 18, 2015
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570722/14
against
21st Century Indemnity Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered July 16, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered July 16, 2013, 2013, affirmed with $10 costs.
We sustain the grant of defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party, no-fault action, albeit for reasons other than those stated by Civil Court. Our review of the record reveals that defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely and properly denied plaintiff’s no-fault claims on the ground that the fees charged by plaintiff for the acupuncture services rendered to its assignor exceeded the amount permitted by the applicable worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. Contrary to plaintiff’s present argument, the affidavits of the employees of defendant’s mailing center and the entity which administers its no-fault claims, sufficiently detailed their respective office procedures, including the placement of the NF-10/Explanation of Benefits (EOB) and checks made out to plaintiff in partial payment of no-fault benefits, in a clear window envelope so that the mailing and return address on the front of the first page of the document were visible. Plaintiff, which conceded receipt of the payment checks, did not dispute that the NF-10 forms were contained in the same envelopes. Accordingly, defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claims – which sought the difference between the amount charged for the acupuncture services and payments made to plaintiff pursuant to the fee schedule.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 18, 2015
Reported in New York Official Reports at Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51849(U))
against
Nationwide General Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered December 18, 2014, as granted defendant partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s no-fault claims for services rendered April 9, 2009 through May 27, 2009, and June 25, 2009 through September 15, 2009.
Per Curiam.
Order (David B. Cohen, J.), entered December 18, 2014, insofar as appealed from, modified by reinstating plaintiff’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT code 99202; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.
The affidavits and other documentary evidence submitted by defendant established, prima facie, that it timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) plaintiff’s no-fault claims billed under CPT codes 97810, 97811, 97813 and 97814 for services rendered April 9, 2009 through May 27, 2009 and June 25, 2009 through September 15, 2009, on the ground that the amounts charged were in excess of the fees set forth in the applicable worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept 2009]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the efficacy of defendant’s mailing of the denial or the calculation of the fee pertaining to these claims.
However, triable issues remain as to whether defendant properly denied plaintiff’s claim for $61.43, billed under CPT code 99202 (initial evaluation), thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim (see Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52199[U][App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50164[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 18, 2015
Reported in New York Official Reports at Alfa Med. Supplies, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51847(U))
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered February 3, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered February 3, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-provider’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor and her attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 [2013]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was entitled to request the IMEs prior to its receipt of plaintiff’s claim forms (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Steven Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; see also Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 19-20 [2005]). Moreover, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining chiropractor/acupuncturist and defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth facts sufficient to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a schedule IME (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424; Harmonic Physical Therapy v Encompass Home and Auto Ins. Co. 47 Misc 3d 146[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50733[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).
In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; see also Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229 [2004]). “Accordingly, when [plaintiff’s] assignor[] failed to appear for the [*2]requested medical exams, [defendant] had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424), and even though defendant initially denied the claims on different grounds (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560).
Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and/or without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 18, 2015
Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 09184)
| Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09184 [134 AD3d 495] |
| December 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Allstate Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, Appellant, v New Way Massage Therapy P.C., as Assignee of Nancy Febus, Respondent. |
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant.
The Geller Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn (Abraham J. Meir of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Whether or not the fee-sharing arrangement at issue constitutes unprofessional conduct (see 8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [4]), it does not constitute a defense to a no-fault action (compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005] [“insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims”]). It is solely a matter for the appropriate state licensing board (see e.g. Necula v Glass, 231 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1996]; see also H & H Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 1075, 1078 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2015]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30874(U).]
Reported in New York Official Reports at Karina K. Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51624(U))
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered November 15, 2013, which, upon a prior order granting summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Judgment (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered November 15, 2013, reversed, with $30 costs, defendant’s motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.
Civil Court erred by treating defendant’s motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) as a motion for summary judgment without providing adequate notice to the parties (see CPLR 3211[c]; Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506, 508 [1988]). The parties’ motion papers clearly indicated their intent to treat the motion as one made pursuant to CPLR 3211, and the case does not involve a purely legal question without any disputed issues of fact (see Brathwaite v Frankel, 98 AD3d 444, 445 [2012]; see also Drug Policy Alliance v The New York City Tax Commission, 131 AD3d 815 [2015]).
Treating the motion as one for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211, we conclude that it should have been denied. Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, and according them the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must in the context of a motion to dismiss the pleadings (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find the complaint sufficient to state a cause of action for recovery of first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant (see Genovese v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 866, 868 [2013]; Innovative MR Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 147[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50359[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affidavits submitted in support of its defense – that plaintiff is not entitled to no-fault coverage because it breached a condition precedent under the policy by failing to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1) – do not “‘establish conclusively that [plaintiff] has no [claim or] cause of action'” (Lawrence v Graubard Miller, 11 NY3d 588, 595 [2008], quoting Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636 [*2][1976]), and are “not properly considered on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7)” (GEM Holdco, LLC v Changing World Tech., L.P., 127 AD3d 598, 599 [2015]; see Lee v Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 121 AD3d 548 [2014]; Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180 [2010]). Nor (as defendant effectively concedes), were the affidavits “essentially undeniable” so as to qualify as documentary evidence (see CPLR 3211[a][1]) that conclusively establishes its defense or definitively refutes any claim that plaintiff may have to recover under the policy (see Mason v First Cent. Natl. Life Ins. Co. of NY, 86 AD3d 854, 855 [2011]).
Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and/or without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 12, 2015
Reported in New York Official Reports at Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51623(U))
| Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 51623(U) |
| Decided on November 12, 2015 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on November 12, 2015
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570815/15
against
Amica Mutual Ins. Company, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), dated January 7, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), dated January 7, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.
The affidavits and other documentary evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that it timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) plaintiff’s claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits on the ground that the fees plaintiff charged for the acupuncture services rendered to its assignor exceeded the amount permitted by the worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U][App Term, 1st Dept [2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept 2009]). The mistake contained in the notary’s jurat (as to the year) was properly disregarded, since no substantial right of a party was affected (see CPLR 2001).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the efficacy of defendant’s mailing of the denial or the calculation of the fee. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim – which sought the difference between the amount charged for the services and payments made to plaintiff pursuant to the fee schedule – was properly granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 12, 2015