December 19, 2014
Coney Is. Physician Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51859(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/coney-is-physician-care-p-c-v-praetorian-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op51859u/
- Decided
- December 19, 2014
- Citation
- 2014 NY Slip Op 51859(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 Coney Is. Physician Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51859(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
Praetorian Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered April 18, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
An affidavit submitted by defendant’s no-fault claims examiner established that, with respect to two bills for services rendered on December 22, 2009, a bill for services rendered on December 23, 2009, and a bill for $340 for services rendered from January 15, 2010 to January 21, 2010, defendant had timely mailed verification requests and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th [*2]Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant demonstrated that it had not received the verification requested, and plaintiff did not show that such verification had been provided to defendant. Consequently, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny those claims did not begin to run (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]), and so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon those claims should have been dismissed as premature.
With respect to the remaining claims at issue, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit established that the scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Defendant also submitted affidavits by the healthcare professionals who were to perform the IMEs, which affidavits established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). An affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner sufficiently described the standard mailing practices and procedures to establish the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Since an assignor’s appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the remaining claims should have been granted.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 19, 2014
Legal questions (4)
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 claims examiner's affidavit established timely mailing of the verification requests, and the IME scheduler's and litigation examiner's affidavits describing standard mailing practices established timely mailing of the IME scheduling letters and denials.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (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 IME scheduler's affidavit proved mailing of the scheduling letters and the examining professionals' affidavits proved the assignor's nonappearance, so summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims was warranted.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?
This decision: Timely requests went unanswered; the claim is not overdue and the action is premature
Held claims for four bills premature because the insurer timely mailed verification and follow-up requests, never received the verification, and the provider did not show it was provided.
Of the 385 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 153 (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)
Held the insurer established timely mailing of its denials on the IME no-show ground, together with mailing and nonappearance proof, entitling it to dismissal of the remaining claims.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (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)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 09484) FollowedAn insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
- 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.
Similar decisions
- All About Rehabilitation & P.T., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51815(U))An assignor's appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- 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.
- 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.
- Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51679(U))The insurer proved IME nonappearance on six claims and rebutted the presumption of receipt of the remaining claim.
- J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U))An assignor's appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.