February 21, 2012

New Life Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50346(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-life-med-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-50346u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 21, 2012
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 50346(U) · 34 Misc 3d 154(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity (see the maps)

Cite as

New Life Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 154(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 50346(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 provider's practitioner's affidavit failed to meaningfully rebut the insurer's peer review conclusions that the services were medically unnecessary. Civil Court denied both parties' summary judgment motions and limited trial to medical necessity. The insurer's two affirmed peer review reports each supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the services unnecessary. The provider did not challenge the finding that the insurer was otherwise entitled to judgment. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at New Life Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50346(U))

[*1]

New Life Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50346(U) [34 Misc 3d 154(A)]

Decided on February 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 21, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ———————-x

New Life Medical, P.C. as Assignee of CHRISTINA SARGEANT, Respondent, —
against
Geico Ins. Co., Appellant. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ———————-x

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered October 15, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, 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 summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, and found that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the services provided to plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, two affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth the factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. The affidavit by plaintiff’s health care practitioner submitted in response failed to meaningfully rebut the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; 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]). As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s cross [*2]motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 21, 2012

Legal questions

A question 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

Granted the insurer summary judgment because its two affirmed peer reviews set forth a factual basis and medical rationale and the practitioner's opposing affidavit failed to meaningfully rebut them.

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.

Cited in this decision

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52321(U))The insurer established timely denials and lack of medical necessity, and the provider's chiropractor failed to rebut the insurer's showing.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U))The provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U))The insurer's examining physician supplied an unrebutted factual basis and medical rationale that the billed MRI was unnecessary.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52455(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.
A Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51342(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.

Similar decisions

Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52004(U))The insurer's unrebutted sworn peer review established that the services lacked medical necessity.
High Quality Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52373(U))The insurer's peer review and IME reports established lack of medical necessity, and the provider's medical affidavit failed to rebut them.
New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50419(U))The provider's doctor's affidavit raised a factual issue on medical necessity, defeating the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment.
Neomy Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50145(U))The provider's doctor's affidavit raised a triable question of medical necessity despite the insurer's sufficient peer review.
Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50394(U))The provider's doctor's affirmation failed to meaningfully address or rebut the insurer's peer review conclusions on medical necessity.