October 14, 2011

Radiology Imaging of Queens v Progressive Ins. (2011 NY Slip Op 51860(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/radiology-imaging-of-queens-v-progressive-ins-2011-ny-slip-op51860u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: October 14, 2011
Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 51860(U) · 33 Misc 3d 129(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Radiology Imaging of Queens v Progressive Ins., 33 Misc 3d 129(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51860(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 insurer's unopposed peer review and timely denial established entitlement to dismissal for lack of medical necessity. In its summary judgment motion, the insurer demonstrated that the denial was timely mailed through its standard office practices and procedures. It also submitted an affirmed peer review providing a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor's opinion that the service was unnecessary. That proof established the insurer's prima facie entitlement to judgment. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order denying the motion and granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint for assigned no-fault benefits.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Radiology Imaging of Queens v Progressive Ins. (2011 NY Slip Op 51860(U))

[*1]

Radiology Imaging of Queens v Progressive Ins.

2011 NY Slip Op 51860(U) [33 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on October 14, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 14, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2010-161 K C.

Radiology Imaging of Queens Doing Business as ADVANCED MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC as Assignee of HERLIN CHERY, Respondent,
against
Progressive Insurance, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered November 6, 2009. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s 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 which denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant established that a denial of claim form, which denied the claim at issue on the ground of lack of medical necessity, was timely mailed in accordance with its standard office practices andprocedures (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, among other things, an affirmed peer review report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s opinion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the rendered service. Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (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, defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the [*2]complaint should have been granted.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 14, 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.

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 affirmed peer review report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for lack of medical necessity, establishing the insurer's prima facie case on an unopposed motion, so summary judgment should have been granted.

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.

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 insurer established that its denial of claim form was timely mailed in accordance with its standard office practices and procedures.

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.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U)) FollowedThe 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)) FollowedThe 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)) FollowedThe insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.

Similar decisions

Complete Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52015(U))The insurer's peer review report raised a triable issue of medical necessity and defeated the provider's summary judgment motion.
Complete Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52158(U))The insurer's affirmed peer review established lack of medical necessity, and the provider did not rebut that showing.
Diagnostic Radiographic Imaging v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50869(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review reports established that the disputed services were not medically necessary.
Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51541(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale establishing lack of medical necessity.
Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52157(U))The insurer's peer reviews established lack of medical necessity, and the provider submitted no written opposition to the cross motion.