November 19, 2015

GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51698(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gl-acupuncture-p-c-v-praetorian-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op51698u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 19, 2015
Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 51698(U) · 49 Misc 3d 147(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Fee schedule Timeliness and preclusion
Legal questions: Proving a fee schedule defense · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 147(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 51698(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015)

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 established timely denial and full payment under the fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors. In the provider's action for assigned no-fault benefits, the insurer opposed the provider's summary judgment motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on fee-schedule grounds. Contrary to the provider's contention, the insurer proved timely mailing of the denial and payment in accordance with the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule, following Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order denying the provider's motion and granting the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51698(U))

[*1]

GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

2015 NY Slip Op 51698(U) [49 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on November 19, 2015

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 19, 2015

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-753 K C

GL Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of CLIVE ELCOCK, Appellant,
against
Praetorian Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered January 18, 2013. 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 affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had properly paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established that the denial of claim form at issue had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant further demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: November 19, 2015

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.

Proving a fee schedule defense

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove that the amount billed exceeded the applicable workers’ compensation fee schedule?

This decision: Insurer proved the billed amount exceeded the applicable fee schedule

Held the insurer fully paid the services under the chiropractor acupuncture fee schedule, so dismissal was affirmed.

Excess shownNot established; openDefense rejectedSplit by chargeThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 284 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 146 (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 (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)

Rejected the provider's contention and held the insurer established that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed.

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 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (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.
Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29467) FollowedAn insurer may use the chiropractic acupuncture fee schedule to reimburse acupuncture services performed by a licensed acupuncturist.

Similar decisions

Gl Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51748(U))The insurer established full payment at the workers' compensation fee-schedule rate for chiropractic acupuncture.
Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v Truck Ins. Exch. (2016 NY Slip Op 50309(U))The insurer established timely mailing of its denial and full payment under the fee schedule for acupuncture performed by chiropractors.
Ying E. Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51805(U))The insurer established timely denials and proper use of the chiropractic acupuncture fee schedule, defeating the provider's summary judgment.
Health Needles Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51864(U))The insurer established full payment for the disputed acupuncture services under the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors.
GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51235(U))The insurer established timely denials and proper reimbursement under the workers' compensation fee schedule for the acupuncture services.