September 8, 2017
Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51159(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/chiroworks-chiropractic-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51159u/
- Decided
- September 8, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51159(U) · 57 Misc 3d 128(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- IME no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
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 Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51159(U))
| Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51159(U) [57 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on September 8, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 8, 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
2014-2147 Q C
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.
Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace, Esq.), for appellant. Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 23, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
There is no merit to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal regarding the sufficiency of the proof submitted by defendant to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017
Legal questions
A question 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.
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
Rejected the provider's challenge to the sufficiency of the insurer's proof and held it established that the assignor failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604)An insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51628(U))The insurer's attorney affirmation established the assignor's EUO nonappearance through the law firm's appearance-recording procedures.
Similar decisions
- Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51325(U))The insurer established proper mailing of IME scheduling letters and denial forms, as well as the assignor's nonappearance.
- BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51068(U))The insurer's examining chiropractors established IME nonappearance, and the provider's counsel raised no triable issue in opposition.
- Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50864(U))An assignor's appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51256(U))The insurer proved timely mailing of the IME notices and denial and the assignor's nonappearance, warranting dismissal of the provider's claim.
- Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50397(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of the IME scheduling letters underlying its nonappearance defense.