New decisions.

Radiology Today, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52208(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2009)

In support of its motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of a manager employed by the independent medical review service retained by defendant to schedule and conduct IMEs, which affidavit sufficiently set forth the standard office practice and procedure for the generation and mailing of IME notices designed to ensure that said notices were properly addressed and mailed (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; cf. Top Choice Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50230[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). The affirmations and affidavits of the medical professionals who were to perform the IMEs established that plaintiff’s assignor failed to [*2]appear for said IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Tuncel v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Consequently, defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Richmond Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52210(U) (App. Term., 2nd, 2009)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the doctor performing the peer review did not conclude that he had insufficient information upon which to base a conclusion. Instead, the affirmed report raised a triable issue of fact because “the report clearly indicates that the pertinent [treating] physician’s reports and other documentation had been requested and provided for the purpose of conducting a peer review, and the conclusion of lack of medical necessity is based on the peer reviewer’s opinion, in effect, that there was no substantiation in the reports and documents reviewed of medical necessity for the [services] provided” (Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50452[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

New Wave Oriental Acupuncture, P.C. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52211(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2009)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit submitted by defendant sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). For the reasons stated in Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (16 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), it was proper for [*2]defendant to use the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive (see AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 41 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, defendant raised a triable issue of fact and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52222(U) (App. Term., 2nd, 2009)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, although plaintiff’s claim was submitted more than 45 days after the services at issue were rendered, defendant waived its reliance on the 45-day rule (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1) as a basis to deny the claim because defendant had failed to communicate to plaintiff, as required by the No-Fault Regulations, that late submission of the proof of claim will be excused where the applicant can provide a reasonable justification for the late submission (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.3 [e]; SZ Med. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 52 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Further, defendant failed to demonstrate that discovery was needed in [*2]order to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [f]).