April 7, 2014
J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/j-c-healing-touch-rehab-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2014ny-slip-op-50635u/
- Decided
- April 7, 2014
- Citation
- 2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U) · 43 Misc 3d 134(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 J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U))
| J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U) [43 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on April 7, 2014 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2012-521 K C.
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered October 28, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 10, 2012 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 28, 2011 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,597.88.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered October 28, 2011 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which this appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
In support of its cross motion, 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 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 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 judgment is reversed, the order entered October 28, 2011 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2014
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 standard-mailing-practice affidavits established timely mailing of the IME scheduling letters and of the denial of claim forms.
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 IME scheduler's affidavit proved timely mailing of the letters and the examiners' affidavits proved the assignor's nonappearance, a condition precedent to liability.
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)
Held the litigation examiner's affidavit established timely mailing of the IME no-show denials, supporting dismissal.
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.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) FollowedAn insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- 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
- By MD, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51232(U))The provider's affidavit failed to rebut the presumption that the assignor received the duly mailed IME notices.
- Village Med. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50631(U))The insurer established timely IME notices and the assignor's nonappearance, defeating the provider's claims.
- East 75th St. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50564(U))The insurer proved mailing of the IME notices, timely mailing of the denials, and the assignor's failure to attend the scheduled IMEs. An employee of the scheduling company established mailing through its standard office practices and procedures.
- 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.
- Neomy Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52279(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of the IME notices and denials and the assignor's failure to appear.