November 13, 2020
A.C. Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51378(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-c-med-p-c-v-ameriprise-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op-51378u/
- Decided
- November 13, 2020
- Citation
- 2020 NY Slip Op 51378(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at A.C. Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51378(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
Ameriprise Insurance Company, Appellant.
Bruno, Gerbino. Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Cenceria P. Edwards, J.), entered November 28, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims submitted by plaintiff A.C. Medical, P.C. is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
With respect to plaintiff A.C. Medical, P.C. (ACM), defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an examination under oath (EUO) had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that ACM had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). As ACM failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims submitted by ACM.
As to the remaining claims at issue which were submitted by plaintiff Vital Chiropractic, P.C. (Vital), defendant contends that its initial EUO scheduling letter tolled defendant’s time to pay or deny all of the claims at issue (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), that the toll was maintained by timely follow-up scheduling letters (see 11 NYCRR 65-3-6 [b) and that defendant had timely denied plaintiff’s claims (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant’s motion failed to establish, as a matter of law, that defendant had timely denied Vital’s claims after Vital had failed to appear at both an initial and a follow-up EUO.
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims submitted by plaintiff A.C. Medical, P.C. is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 13, 2020
Legal questions (3)
Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: No-show defense is subject to preclusion and fails for want of a timely, proper denial
Granted dismissal of one provider's claims as timely denied after two EUO nonappearances, but held the insurer failed to establish it timely denied the other provider's claims after the initial and follow-up EUO nonappearances.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 166 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer established that the initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters and the denials of one provider's claims were timely mailed.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer established timely mailing of initial and follow-up EUO letters and the provider's failure to appear on either date for one provider's claims.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- ARCO Med. N.Y., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52382(U))A follow-up EUO request is not premature when sent within 10 days after failure to appear for the initial scheduled examination.
Similar decisions
- Sovereigh Acupuncture, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50922(U))The insurer's EUO defense failed because scheduling was late for some claims and the insurer rescheduled each EUO before its date.
- Zen Acupuncture, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51262(U))The insurer's initial EUO request, sent more than 30 days after receipt of the claims, was a nullity as to those claims.
- Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50421(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- First Class Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50477(U))The insurer's EUO letters were sufficient because they identified the assignor, accident date and file number.
- K.O. Med., P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50687(U))The insurer's EUO request was a nullity for four claims because it was sent more than 30 days after receipt.