July 21, 2017
Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50947(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/brand-med-supply-inc-v-praetorian-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50947u/
- Decided
- July 21, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 50947(U) · 56 Misc 3d 133(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- IME no-show
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 Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50947(U))
| Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 50947(U) [56 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on July 21, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 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
2014-1253 K C
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Appellant.
Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. ( Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider 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.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by the president of Media Referral, Inc., which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit sufficiently established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit from the medical provider who was to perform the IMEs, which sufficiently established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for those duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim form, which denied the claim based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). Since defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722) and that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claim on that ground, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion [*2]for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017
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.
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
Held the affidavit of the IME scheduling company's president established timely mailing of the IME letters, and the claims examiner's affidavit established timely mailing of the denial of claim form.
Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (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
Held the scheduling company's affidavit proved timely mailing of the IME letters and the examining provider's affidavit proved the assignor's nonappearance, establishing breach of a condition precedent.
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.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Granted the insurer summary judgment because its claims examiner's affidavit showed the denial based on the IME nonappearance was timely mailed, completing the defense.
Of the 500 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 334 (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.
Cited by
- Advanced Recovery v Allstate Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21148)The examiners' affidavits established IME nonappearance despite being sworn over three years later without explaining the basis of recollection.
Similar decisions
- Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52062(U))An assignor's appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Cortland Med. Supply, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50394(U))The insurer established the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs and timely mailing of the requests and denials.
- Pro Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 50380(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of the IME requests and denials and the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits.
- Arcadia Imaging, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51208(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of IME notices and the denial, as well as the assignor's IME nonappearances.
- I.V. Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50380(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of IME notices and the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims.