December 19, 2017

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51821(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/healing-art-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51821u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 19, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 51821(U) · 58 Misc 3d 136(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: Timeliness and preclusion Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case on motions · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 136(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 51821(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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 failed to prove timely denials preserving its fee-schedule defense, and the provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment. The insurer's affidavits did not sufficiently describe an office mailing practice ensuring timely mailing of denial forms. It therefore failed to establish that it was not precluded from defending on the ground that the charges exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The provider's affidavit established neither untimely denials nor timely denials that were conclusory, vague or legally meritless. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to deny the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and affirmed denial of the provider's motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51821(U))

[*1]

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51821(U) [58 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on December 19, 2017

Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-1116 K C

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Singh Neilpattie, Appellant,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 30, 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.

Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavits submitted by defendant did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defense—that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule— defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

However, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of [*2]its motion failed to establish that the claims at issue 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 a timely denial of claim that was 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]). As a result, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly 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 SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 19, 2017

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's affidavit failed to show the claims had not been timely denied or that a timely denial was conclusory, vague or meritless, so its summary judgment 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.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The insurer's proof did not establish mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice

Held the insurer's affidavits did not sufficiently describe a standard office practice ensuring timely mailing of the denials, so it did not show it was not precluded from its fee schedule defense.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 260 (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.
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)The 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))The provider failed to establish summary judgment entitlement because nonpayment alone did not show an absent or legally insufficient denial.

Similar decisions

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51716(U))The insurer failed to prove timely mailing of its fee schedule denials, and the provider failed to establish its prima facie case.
Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51903(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of its fee-schedule denial, while the provider failed to establish entitlement to payment.
Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50830(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of its denials asserting that the provider's charges exceeded the fee schedule.
Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50387(U))The insurer failed to prove mailing of IME notices or that the provider's fee exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule.
Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50779(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of its denials asserting that the provider's charges exceeded the fee schedule.