August 20, 2014

SS Med. Care, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ss-med-care-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op51305u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: August 20, 2014
Citation: 2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Verification requests
Legal questions: Outstanding verification and premature actions · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

SS Med. Care, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014)

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 provider's action was premature because the insurer proved timely verification requests and nonreceipt of the requested information. The insurer's claims examiner established timely mailing of initial and follow-up requests, and the provider did not oppose the cross motion for summary judgment. Nothing in the record required additional proof that the annexed copies of the verification letters had not been altered or tampered with. Because the requested verification remained outstanding, the 30-day period to pay or deny had not begun under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (a). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, vacated the provider's favorable CPLR 3212 (g) findings, and granted the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at SS Med. Care, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51305(U))

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

SS Medical Care, P.C. as Assignee of CHARLES ROBINSON, Respondent,
against
Eveready Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 26, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, made CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor are vacated, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for, among other things, summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature due to plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court, upon denying plaintiff’s motion, made CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor, denied defendant’s cross motion, and limited the issues for trial.

In support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its 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 Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification. Plaintiff did not oppose defendant’s cross motion. Contrary to the Civil Court’s statement, there is nothing in the record which would require defendant to prove that the copies of the verification letters annexed to defendant’s cross motion had not been tampered with or altered (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of NY, 84 NY2d 639, 643 [1994]; People v Dicks, 100 AD3d 528 [2012]; Rotanelli v Longo, 210 AD2d 392 [1994]). As the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]; D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51727[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), plaintiff’s action is premature.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor are vacated, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Decision Date: August 20, 2014

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.

Outstanding verification and premature actions

Open the full map

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 the action premature because the insurer timely mailed verification and follow-up requests, never received the verification, and the provider did not oppose.

Premature: verification outstandingNonresponse denial upheldTriable issueInsurer's showing failsProvider compliedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

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.

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)

Held the claims examiner's affidavit established timely mailing of the verification and follow-up requests, and rejected any requirement to prove the annexed letter copies had not been altered.

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 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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)An insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05413)The hospitals' first and fifth claims were dismissed because policy limits were exhausted and requested verification remained outstanding.
D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51727(U))The provider's incomplete verification responses left the insurer's time to pay or deny untriggered and the action premature.

Similar decisions

City Chiropractic, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51802(U))The provider's action was premature because it did not show that all requested verification had been supplied before suit.
J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50774(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment on lack of medical necessity was denied, leaving only whether verification was outstanding for trial.
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52184(U))The provider's action was premature because the insurer had not received all verification requested before suit commenced.
Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50958(U))The provider's action was premature because requested verification remained outstanding when suit commenced.
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50917(U))The provider's mailing affidavit raised a factual issue over receipt of verification, defeating the insurer's premature-action defense on summary judgment.