May 18, 2018

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50733(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/healthway-med-care-p-c-v-american-commerce-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50733u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: May 18, 2018
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 50733(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: EUO no-show Timeliness and preclusion Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case on motions · No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)

Cite as

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50733(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018)

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.

The insurer's EUO requests were nullities because its initial request was sent more than 30 days after receipt of the claims. In this action for assigned no-fault benefits, the provider sought summary judgment, and the insurer cross-moved to dismiss based on the provider's failure to appear for EUOs. The provider failed to establish that the claims were untimely denied or that timely denials were conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law. The insurer also failed to establish entitlement to dismissal because its EUO requests were late. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to deny the insurer's cross motion and otherwise affirmed, leaving both motions denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50733(U))

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Healthway Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Davis, Ebony, Appellant,
against
American Commerce Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman and Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered August 21, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, as plaintiff failed to establish that its claims had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; 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]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

However, plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that defendant failed to demonstrate that it [*2]was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to appear for EUOs, as the initial EUO request had been sent more than 30 days after defendant had received the claims at issue and, therefore, the requests were nullities as to those claims (see Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 47 Misc 3d 134[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50476[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 18, 2018

Legal questions (2)

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.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)

Held the provider failed to establish that its claims had not been timely denied or that timely denials were conclusory, vague or without merit, so its motion was properly denied.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 247 (this one included) are in the same category.

No-show defense: insurer's proof

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?

This decision: Insurer did not show its requests met the regulatory timing, follow-up or justification requirements

Held the insurer not entitled to summary judgment on the EUO no-show defense because the initial EUO request was sent more than 30 days after receipt of the claims, making the requests nullities.

Defense provedMailing not provedNonappearance not provedRequests not compliantTriable issueNo-show excusedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 102 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 04787) FollowedA provider establishes entitlement to summary judgment on overdue no-fault claims with admissible proof of mailing and receipt of statutory claim forms.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933) FollowedThe provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to establish summary judgment entitlement because nonpayment alone did not show an absent or legally insufficient denial.
Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. (2015 NY Slip Op 51220(U)) FollowedThe insurer's EUO requests were untimely because they followed receipt of the bills by more than 15 business days and 30 calendar days.
O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50476(U)) FollowedThe insurer's first EUO scheduling letter, mailed nearly three months after receipt of the claim, was a nullity.

Similar decisions

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.
Careful Complete Med., P.C. v Delos Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51867(U))The insurer's EUO requests were nullities because the initial request was sent more than 30 days after receipt of the claims.
Ditmas Primary Med. Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50438(U))The insurer's proof established timely mailing of EUO notices and denials and the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims.
New Way Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50809(U))The insurer established timely mailing of EUO scheduling letters and denials, as well as the assignor's failure to appear for the EUOs. The provider moved for summary judgment to recover assigned no-fault benefits, and the insurer cross-moved to dismiss based on the assignor's nonappearance.
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51360(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of both EUO scheduling letters through its two affidavits.