March 3, 2015

Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 01750)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/auto-one-ins-co-v-hillside-chiropractic-p-c-2015-ny-slip-op01750/

Court: Appellate Division, First Department
Decided: March 3, 2015
Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 01750 · 126 AD3d 423
Posture: Article 75 petition
Later treatment: Distinguished in 1 and followed in 1 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards)

Cite as

Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 AD3d 423 (1st Dept 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.

A no-fault arbitrator acts arbitrarily by giving an IME report no weight solely for lack of notarization under CPLR 2106. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the denial of the insurer's vacatur petition, vacated the award, and remanded for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The arbitrator had disregarded a chiropractor's IME report solely because it was not notarized. Under 11 NYCRR 65-4.5 (o) (1), strict conformity to evidentiary rules is unnecessary. Because no substantive determination of the report's weight had been made, the master arbitrator and Supreme Court erred in deferring to the arbitrator's assessment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 01750)

Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C.

2015 NY Slip Op 01750 [126 AD3d 423]

Decided on March 3, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

As corrected through Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Decided on March 3, 2015
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.

14398N 161419/13

[*1] Auto One Insurance Company, Petitioner-Appellant,
v
Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., Respondent-Respondent.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 2, 2014, which denied the petition seeking to vacate the determination of the Master Arbitrator, dated November 6, 2013, affirming the award of the lower arbitrator in this no-fault arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the arbitration award vacated, and the matter remanded for a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator.

The no-fault arbitrator gave no weight to an independent medical examination (IME) report, prepared by a chiropractor and submitted by petitioner, because it was not notarized pursuant to CPLR 2106. The Master Arbitrator, in reviewing the award, deferred to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination of the weight to be given to the evidence, as did the IAS court.

We find that the no-fault arbitrator’s decision to adhere, with strict conformity, to the evidentiary rule set forth in CPLR 2106, although such conformity is not required (see 11 NYCRR § 65-4.5[o] [1] [“The arbitrator shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered and strict conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.”], was arbitrary. Accordingly, the award must be vacated (see In re Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.] , 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). We note that since no substantive determination regarding the weight of the IME report was ever made, the Master Arbitrator and the IAS court erred in deferring to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 3, 2015

CLERK

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Community Med. Imaging P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50301(U)) DistinguishedA no-fault arbitrator may require a mailing affidavit when documentary proof of timely claim submission is inconclusive.
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 04156) FollowedA master arbitrator's award was irrational because it ignored the coverage effect of the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs. The insurer presented authority establishing that the IME nonappearances rendered the no-fault policy void ab initio.

Similar decisions

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Capital Chiropractic, P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 01466)The master arbitrator's award was arbitrary because it ignored precedent treating IME nonappearance as voiding the policy from inception.
Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51077(U))The provider's petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award was denied because the determination had a rational basis and conformed to settled law.
Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. (2010 NY Slip Op 01658)The insurer failed to establish grounds to vacate a master arbitration award that had evidentiary support and a rational basis.
563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U))A no-fault arbitrator may raise any issue the arbitrator deems relevant under 11 NYCRR 65-4.4 (e) and 65-4.5 (o).
101 Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U))A master arbitrator's substantive legal determination must be upheld if it has a rational basis, even if legally erroneous.