June 28, 2012

Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/megacure-acupuncture-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op51291u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: June 28, 2012
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U) · 36 Misc 3d 131(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Fee schedule Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proving a fee schedule defense · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 131(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012)

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 proved full fee-schedule payment for earlier acupuncture services and lack of medical necessity for later services. Its claims employee established timely mailing of the denials. Following Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors satisfied the earlier claims. A sworn IME report supported denial of the later claims, and the provider's acupuncturist failed to meaningfully address or rebut its conclusions. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, denied the provider's motion and granted the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims under review. A claim for one date of service was outside the appeal.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U))

[*1]

Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U) [36 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on June 28, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 28, 2012

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2863 K C.

Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of ANTHONY BRUNSON, Respondent, —
against
GEICO Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered December 4, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006, and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006 are denied, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006 are granted. [*2]

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006 and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of its claims division which was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (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]). With respect to plaintiff’s claims for acupuncture services rendered from August 16 through October 25, 2006, defendant demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for those services 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]). With respect to plaintiff’s claims for acupuncture services rendered from October 26, 2006 through December 11, 2006, defendant submitted a sworn independent medical examination (IME) report which concluded that there was a lack of medical necessity for those services. An affidavit by plaintiff’s acupuncturist submitted in opposition to defendant’s cross motion failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the IME report (see Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 142[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50380[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

In view of the foregoing, defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the branches of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for acupuncture services rendered from August 16 through December 11, 2006. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006 are denied, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint [*3]
insofar as it sought to recover upon all of plaintiff’s claims other than plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on August 15, 2006 are granted.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 28, 2012

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.

Lack of medical necessity

Open the full map

Did the insurer’s proof establish lack of medical necessity, and did the provider’s evidence rebut it?

This decision: Insurer's proof established lack of medical necessity and the provider failed to rebut it

Held the sworn IME report showed lack of medical necessity, and the provider's acupuncturist's affidavit failed to meaningfully refer to or rebut it, so the insurer got summary judgment.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 315 (this one included) are in the same category.

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 showed it had fully paid the acupuncture services under the fee schedule for acupuncture performed by chiropractors.

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

Of the 285 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 147 (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-division employee's affidavit sufficient to establish timely mailing of the denial of claim forms.

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

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.
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.
Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50380(U)) FollowedThe provider's supervising acupuncturist failed to meaningfully address or rebut the insurer's IME conclusions on medical necessity.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)) FollowedThe provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.

Similar decisions

Gentle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51290(U))The insurer proved full fee-schedule payment for earlier acupuncture claims and lack of medical necessity for later treatment.
MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U))The insurer established timely denials, proper fee schedule reductions, and lack of medical necessity for the remaining acupuncture services.
Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51772(U))The insurer established timely denials, full fee-schedule payment for certain acupuncture services and lack of necessity for the remaining services.
Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51010(U))The insurer established full fee-schedule payment for four acupuncture claims and lack of medical necessity for a fifth.
Essential Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51600(U))The insurer established full fee schedule payment of acupuncture claims and lack of medical necessity for other disputed services.