June 30, 2011
East Coast Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51229(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-coast-acupuncture-p-c-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op51229u/
- Decided
- June 30, 2011
- Citation
- 2011 NY Slip Op 51229(U) · 32 Misc 3d 127(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
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 East Coast Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51229(U))
| East Coast Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 51229(U) [32 Misc 3d 127(A)] |
| Decided on June 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected in part through November 4, 2011; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-2152 K C.
against
Clarendon National Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered June 11, 2009. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the claims for the sums of $180 (dates of service July 6, 2006 – July 10, 2006), $180 (dates of service July 18, 2006 – July 31, 2006), $360 (dates of service August 4, 2006 – August 31, 2006), $180 (dates of service September 5, 2006 – September 25, 2006), and $270 (dates of service October 12, 2006 – October 23, 2006) are granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff seeks to recover for acupuncture services rendered to its assignor. Plaintiff billed defendant at $90 per session. Defendant paid for some of the sessions, but at a reduced rate per session, and partially denied the claims for these sessions as to the unpaid portion, basing its determination of the appropriate amount of reimbursement upon the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors. Reimbursement for other sessions was entirely denied due to plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to attend scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that it was entitled to summary judgment with respect to those bills or portions of bills for which it had denied reimbursement based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to attend scheduled IMEs and for which it had reduced reimbursement based upon the fee schedules. The Civil Court denied defendant’s unopposed motion on the ground that the motion presented “issues of credibility [*2]which the court cannot resolve on a motion for summary judgment,” and stated that the supporting exhibits themselves raised triable issues of fact. This appeal ensued.
A review of the record indicates that defendant’s motion papers were sufficient to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs and that the claim denial forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office 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 established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to attend scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Since the appearance of plaintiff’s assignor at the IMEs was a “condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1), defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint with regard to those claims which it had denied on that basis “retroactively to the date of loss” (id.), i.e., so much of the bill dated August 14, 2006 as sought to recover the sum of $180 (dates of service July 6, 2006 – July 10, 2006), $180 (dates of service July 18, 2006 – July 31, 2006), $360 (dates of service August 4, 2006 – August 31, 2006), $180 (dates of service September 5, 2006 – September 25, 2006), and $270 (dates of service October 12, 2006 – October 23, 2006).
With respect to the unpaid portions of the remaining bills which defendant claims were timely denied based upon the fee schedules, the letters from defendant to plaintiff which were annexed to defendant’s motion papers and which advised plaintiff that the processing of its bills was being delayed pending an examination under oath were insufficient to toll the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny those bills (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [a]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]). Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to those bills, albeit for a reason other than that stated by the Civil Court.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 30, 2011
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 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 insurer's unopposed papers proved mailing of the IME letters and the assignor's failure to attend, reversing a finding of credibility issues as to those claims.
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)
Granted summary judgment on the claims denied for the IME no-show after finding the denial forms timely mailed.
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.
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's motion papers sufficient to establish timely mailing of the IME scheduling letters and claim denial forms under standard office practices.
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.
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.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
Similar decisions
- Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52205(U))The insurer's IME nonappearance defense was precluded for the claim its denial form instead denied based on an IME report.
- East Coast Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2008 NY Slip Op 50344(U))A billing provider cannot recover direct payment of assigned no-fault benefits for services rendered by an independent contractor.
- Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52199(U))The insurer failed to prove that the acupuncture charges exceeded the fee schedule, and the provider failed to establish entitlement to judgment.
- Gentle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52226(U))An insurer may use the chiropractic acupuncture fee schedule to reimburse acupuncture services performed by a licensed acupuncturist.
- NYC East-West Acupuncture, P.c. v Maryland Cas. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51762(U))The insurer's unrebutted IME evidence established lack of medical necessity, while the provider failed to authenticate its claim records.