Tag Archive: Prima Facie

Strange Brew

Written on October 27, 2009 by Dave Gottlieb
0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 52698(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2009)

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from the order of this court dated February 8, 2008 denied as academic.

On the court’s own motion, reargument of the order and decision of this court in the above-entitled action, dated February 8, 2008, is granted and, upon reargument, the order and decision of this court dated February 8, 2008 are vacated and the following is substituted as the decision of the court:

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), dated October 17, 2006. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion, asserting,
inter alia, that the affidavits submitted by plaintiff were insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and that plaintiff failed to submit a timely claim for reimbursement of benefits. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that defendant raised triable issues of fact as to the denial of the claim and as to whether plaintiff timely mailed the bills to defendant. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it [*2]submitted the claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; see also Mani Med., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50508[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). The burden, therefore, shifted to defendant to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The affidavit’ of defendant’s no-fault supervisor, submitted by defendant to establish that defendant timely denied plaintiff’s claim, was not signed. Thus, the affidavit’ is of no probative value and defendant failed to establish that it timely denied plaintiff’s claim within the 30-day prescribed period (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [c]). As a result, defendant is precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), including its proffered defense that the claim was submitted more than 45 days after the date of service.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the matter is remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

And here is the decision it replaces.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, two affidavits by a corporate officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavits executed by the corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavits by plaintiff’s officer failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court below denied the motion on the ground that defendant raised a question of fact as to the timeliness of plaintiff’s mailing of the claim. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Since the affidavits submitted by plaintiff’s officer were insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment ( see Dan Med., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc.3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006] ). Consequently, the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.

There is no reference to Dan Med in the new decision.  And right after the Appellate Division grants leave in Carothers v. Geico.  Weird.

Mani Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 52697(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2009)

On the court’s own motion, reargument of the order and decision of this court, dated January 15, 2008, in the above entitled action, is granted and, upon reargument, the order and decision of this court dated January 15, 2008 are vacated and the following is substituted as the decision of the court:

***

Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing because plaintiff did not demonstrate that it possessed a valid assignment. Even assuming that a prima facie case requires proof of a valid assignment, where, as here, the claim forms stated that the assignor’s signature was on file,’ such a burden is satisfied, inasmuch as defendant did not timely take action to verify the existence of a valid assignment (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312 [2007]). Since defendant raises no other issue with respect to plaintiff’s establishment of its prima facie case, we do not pass on the propriety of the implicit determination of the court below with respect thereto.

While plaintiff sought summary judgment, inter alia, upon its claim form dated December 23, 2002 in the sum of $746.01, the record is devoid of any proof of a denial of claim form corresponding to plaintiff’s $746.01 claim form. (We note that the supervisor of defendant’s no-fault department submitted an affidavit in opposition in which she stated that defendant received separate claims seeking the sums of $82.89 and $663.23.’ The sum of the foregoing two claims does not equal $746.01. However, two of the NF-10 denial of claim forms annexed to defendant’s opposing papers indicated that they denied separate claims seeking the sums of $82.89 and $663.12, the sum of which does equal $746.01. Defendant makes no attempt to explain this discrepancy.) As a result, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment upon its claim for $746.01.

Further, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claims, the court below held that the peer review reports submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion were inadmissible inasmuch as they failed to comply with CPLR 2106. Where, as here, the signatures appear to be affixed by stamp or generated by a computer, plaintiff’s assertion, in its reply papers, that such peer review reports did not constitute evidence in admissible form due to a failure to comply with CPLR 2106 would ordinarily raise an issue of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see Seoulbank, NY Agency v D & J Export & Import Corp., 270 AD2d 193 [2000]; Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553 [1992]; see also James v Albank, 307 AD2d 1024 [2003]). However, inasmuch as defendant’s counsel has submitted papers to this court in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from the original order of this court dated January 15, 2008, (which motion has been rendered academic by the issuance of this decision and order), conceding that [t]he reports in question contain stamped signatures,’ and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the stamped signatures were placed on the reports by the doctor who performed the peer reviews or at his direction, it is our view that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the claim at issue (see Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778 [2008]).

Tags: , , 45 day rule, Dan Med, Denials, Medical Necessity, Prima Facie, no fault law
0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Catching Up

Written on October 24, 2009 by Dave Gottlieb
2 Comments - Leave a comment!

I’ve been under the weather for the past week.  According to my wife, I wasn’t sick enough.  According to some people at the office, I had a bad case of the whine flu.  According to me, I felt like I was going to vomit and pass out.

So I didn’t post.  I barely looked at the cases that were coming out.  It’s time to catch up.

No-Fault Defender posted on two important issues.  First, the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal the Appellate Term’s decision in Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co., 24 Misc 3d 19 (App. Term, 2nd 2009).  The decision dates are different, but it’s the same case.  I took a trip over to the Appellate Division to confirm.  The Pine Hollow decision was stapled to the order granting leave1.  Some might find that interesting.  You can read No-Fault Defender’s post HERE.  He believes, and I agree, that this may be the end of Dan Med–a decision that never made sense.  The other post asked the question, Must a carrier demonstrate that a deponent willfully failed to attend EUO’s in order to substantiate this defense?  It begins with the recent Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Arguelles Med. P.C., decision where the Supreme Court found that defendant failed to prove that the EUO was reasonably required, among other things.  He concludes that “In order to oppose an EUO no-show defense, the burden is on the Plaintiff to demonstrate a lack of reasonableness.”  While he poo poos the willful and avowed standard, I believe that it remains appropriate, even for condition precedent issues.  And there is always the Insurance Department opinion letter.

My favorite part of his post is where he directs his readers to my post–the one that only has the case cite and link–for my insight.  Thanks.  This is not the place to go for insight; however, if what you are looking for is stick figure drawings of people sticking their ass in other people’s faces on the subway, this is your place.

In other news2:

Med-Tech Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52111(U) (App. Term, 2nd 2009)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affidavits of plaintiff’s president, who was also plaintiff’s custodian of records, were sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion papers constituted evidence in admissible form pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As defendant concedes, any deficiency in plaintiff’s moving papers regarding proof of mailing of the claim forms was cured by defendant’s claim denial forms acknowledging receipt of the claim forms (see Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted the statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]).

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant established that it had timely denied the claims in question based upon affirmed peer review reports setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s opinion that the supplies provided to plaintiff’s assignors were [*2]not medically necessary (see New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832 [2007]; Quality Health Prods., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51757[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). As a result, defendant proffered sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity (see Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50735[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Plaintiff’s contention that the peer review reports did not constitute evidence in admissible form was waived since said argument is raised for the first time on appeal (see Dowling v Mosey, 32 AD3d 1190 [2006]; Velen Med. Supply, Inc., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50735[U]; Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 145[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51867[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52122(U) (App. Term, 2nd 2009)

On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. We disagree because the affidavit was sufficient to comply with CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As a result, the burden shifted to defendant to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Fatiha Ibrahim, D.C. v MVAIC, 2009 NY Slip Op 52125(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2009)

The Civil Court denied MVAIC’s motion, holding that “MVAIC did not conform to the verification request protocol mandated by the Insurance Regulations of New York.”

Where, as here, plaintiff and his assignor are aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which plaintiff’s assignor was driving at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, is required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle’s owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). However, under the facts of this case, MVAIC’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied since the motion papers contained what appeared to be only the last page of an affidavit executed by MVAIC’s claims examiner, which did not establish, by one with personal knowledge of the facts, plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his remedies against the vehicle’s owner (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, defendant did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and, thus, the order is affirmed.

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Aquiles, 2009 NY Slip Op 32432(U) (Sup Ct, Nassau County, 2009)

In news unrelated to no-fault, everyone should take a moment to check out John M. Hochfelder’s blog, New York Injury Cases Blog.  His posts have pictures.  PICTURES!  And the man can write.  If there are a thousand personal injury blogs, only a handful are worth reading.  His is one of them.

——————————————-

1.  I also read the briefs.  One of them was full of ad hominemA arguments and hyperbole.

2. Some believe that the Appellate Term invented the Dan Med rule to cut down on no-fault litigation, or at the very least, make the cases speed along in the Courts.  If so, the decision has had a contrary effect.  Not only has it clogged the Courts, it caused countless appeals.  Good Stuff.

——————————————-

A.  That’s right, a footnote to the footnote.  I just did that.  If you are interested, Logic for Lawyers, comes highly recommended.  It isn’t cheap, which is why I haven’t read it yet, but based on the recommendation (and the author), I think it’s worth picking up.

Tags: , , , , Coverage, Dan Med, Declaratory Judgment, EUO, Fraud, Geico, Legal writing, no fault law, progressive
2 Comments - Leave a comment!

App. Div. 4th

Written on October 6, 2009 by Dave Gottlieb
0 Comments - Leave a comment!

Sunshine Imaging Assn./WNY MRI v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 06984 (App. Div., 4th)

Plaintiff, as assignee of 14 patients to whom it provided radiological services, commenced this action seeking to recover no-fault benefits pursuant to the contract between each patient and defendant insurer. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint. Although plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing forms were received by defendant and that defendant’s payment of no-fault benefits to plaintiff was overdue (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780; LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 727, 728), defendant raised a triable issue of fact by submitting its denial of claim forms setting forth that the services for which plaintiff sought to recover no-fault benefits were not medically necessary (see Countrywide Ins. Co. v 563 Grand Med., P.C., 50 AD3d 313, 314; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC, 39 AD3d at 780-781). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant is not precluded from denying the claims after the services were rendered on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff’s assignors were entitled only to reimbursement for medically “necessary” expenses (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1]; seesee Long Is. Radiology v Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763, 765). 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]), and plaintiff assignee is subject to that lack of medical necessity defense (see Long Is. Radiology v Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763, 765).

Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to sever the 14 causes of action. “The decision whether to grant severance rests soundly in the discretion of the trial court and, on appeal, will be affirmed absent a demonstration of abuse of discretion or prejudice to a substantial right’ ” (Rapini v New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 8 AD3d 1013, 1014; see Soule v Norton, 299 AD2d 827, 828). [*2]Although this action was commenced “by a single assignee against a single insurer and all [causes of action] allege the erroneous nonpayment of no-fault benefits . . ., they arise from [14] different automobile accidents on various dates in which the [14] unrelated assignors suffered diverse injuries and required different medical treatment” (Poole v Allstate Ins. Co., 20 AD3d 518, 519).

H/T No Fault Defender

Tags: , , Appellate Division, Medical Necessity
0 Comments - Leave a comment!