November 4, 2011

Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52063(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/top-choice-med-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-52063u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 4, 2011
Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 52063(U) · 33 Misc 3d 137(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Later treatment: Distinguished in 1, contrasted (cf., but see) in 3 and followed in 1 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: Provider's prima facie case Timeliness and preclusion
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case on motions · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 137(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 52063(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011)

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 proved two claims remained unpaid and undenied for 30 days, and the insurer's bare denial of receipt raised no triable issue. The billing clerk's affidavit established admissibility under CPLR 4518 and mailing of those claims. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order, insofar as appealed from, to grant the provider summary judgment on them. It affirmed denial on two other claims because the insurer proved timely mailing of denials, and on four claims because the provider failed to establish untimely payment or denial or legally defective denials under Insurance Law § 5106 (a). A separate concurrence questioned the mailing affidavit's sufficiency but followed controlling authority and disagreed with reliance on an authority involving partial payment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52063(U))

[*1]

Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2011 NY Slip Op 52063(U) [33 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on November 4, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 4, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-650 K C.

Top Choice Medical, P.C. as Assignee of ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, Appellant,
against
Geico General Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin D. Garson, J.), entered December 11, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the claims in the sums of $323.25 and $450.77 are granted; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as denied its motion for summary judgment. This action involves eight claim forms for services provided to plaintiff’s assignor.

A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission to the defendant of a claim form, proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and proof either that the defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or that the defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s billing clerk was sufficient to establish that the claim forms which sought to recover the sums of $323.25 and $450.77, and which were annexed [*2]to plaintiff’s moving papers, were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The affidavit also established that these claims were mailed to defendant (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]) and that defendant had failed to pay or deny the claims within the requisite 30-day period. Consequently, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on these claims (see Westchester Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1168), and the burden shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Inasmuch as defendant merely stated that it had never received the claim forms, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on these two claims (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

As to the claims seeking reimbursement in the sums of $129.28 and $71.49, while plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment on these claims, the affidavit submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Consequently, defendant raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d 557; Westchester Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1168; Ave T MPC Corp., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U]), and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied with respect to these two claims.

Finally, as to the claims seeking reimbursement in the sums of $394.73, $193.95, $531.64 and $258.56, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had not either paid or denied the claims within the requisite 30-day period, or that defendant had issued timely denials of claims that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law. Consequently, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment on these four claims (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1168; Ave T MPC Corp., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the claims in the sums of $323.25 and $450.77 are granted.

Pesce, P.J., and Weston, J., concur.

Rios, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.

Rios, J., concurs in the following memorandum:

While I disagree with the sufficiency of defendant’s affidavit attesting to the mailing of the subject denials, I am constrained to concur based upon the Appellate Division’s acceptance of a similar affidavit (St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, proof of the mailing of the denials predicated upon a lack of medical [*3]necessity constitutes a valid basis to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I disagree with the majority’s reliance on Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (78 AD3d 1168 [2010]), as there is no evidence that a partial payment was made in this case.
Decision Date: November 04, 2011

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.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)

Held the provider established its case on four claims but failed on four others because it did not show they were unpaid and undenied within 30 days or that the denials were legally insufficient.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 990 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 246 (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 provider's or claimant's proof established mailing of its claim form, NF-2 or verification response

Held the billing clerk's affidavit established mailing of two claims and the insurer's bare non-receipt statement did not rebut it; separately held the insurer's practice affidavit proved timely mailing of denials for two other claims.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followedDistinguished or limited

Of the 1,341 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 90 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933) FollowedThe provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to establish summary judgment entitlement because nonpayment alone did not show an absent or legally insufficient denial.
Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846) FollowedThe providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
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.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50680(U)) FollowedPeer reviews citing insufficient information do not raise a medical-necessity issue without proof that the insurer sought verification.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Community Med. Imaging P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50301(U)) DistinguishedA no-fault arbitrator may require a mailing affidavit when documentary proof of timely claim submission is inconclusive.
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51350(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer established deductible and fee schedule defenses to three claims and nonreceipt of the claim underlying the second cause of action.
Rockland Family Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50766(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer's own affidavits established the provider's entitlement to $97.14 on a fully denied claim billed under CPT code 99205.
Meridian Acupuncture Care, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50681(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer's reliance on an IME of someone other than the assignor failed to establish lack of medical necessity.
New York Ctr. for Specialty Surgery v Infinity Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51832(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove nonreceipt of the claims because its affidavit did not establish incoming-mail practices and procedures.
Compas Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50254(U))The insurer's untimely denials precluded its EUO nonappearance defense to eight claims, and its denial of receipt did not defeat two others.
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.

Similar decisions

Compas Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51857(U))The insurer proved lack of medical necessity for one claim but failed to establish its payment, late-submission and fee-schedule defenses.
A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2006 NY Slip Op 51662(U))The insurer proved mailing of one medical necessity denial but failed to prove verification mailing for four other claims.
We Care Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50831(U))The provider's billing proof supported its first claim; an unrebutted peer review defeated its third claim on medical necessity.
First Aid Occupational Therapy, PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50594(U))The provider's claims failed in part for outstanding verification and duplicate billing, while separate reimbursement remained disputed.
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50249(U))Seven provider claims were dismissed for IME nonappearance or unanswered verification; neither side established summary judgment on two others.