December 23, 2010

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bath-med-supply-inc-v-geico-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-52316u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 23, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U) · 30 Misc 3d 130(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity Discovery and procedure
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity (see the maps)

Cite as

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 130(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010)

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 peer reviews established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to justify delaying summary judgment for discovery. Two admissible peer review reports supplied factual bases and medical rationales for finding the supplies unnecessary. The provider invoked CPLR 3212 (f), claiming it lacked documents reviewed by the experts, but did not show that those documents were needed to raise a triable issue or that it had served discovery demands despite ample opportunity before the motion. The finding under CPLR 3212 (g) that denials were timely and properly mailed was undisputed on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U))

[*1]

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U) [30 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on December 23, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 23, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-2001 K C.

Bath Medical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of Dyan L. Berger, Respondent,
against
GEICO Insurance Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered July 16, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for a finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had issued timely and valid
claim denials. The Civil Court found that defendant’s claim denial forms “were timely and properly mailed,” and held that the sole issue to be determined at trial was the medical necessity of the medical supplies at issue. This appeal by defendant ensued.

The papers submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment included two peer review reports in admissible form, both of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the opinions of the peer reviewers that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff stated that it was not in possession of all the information and documentation relied upon by the peer reviewers and that these documents were “essential to justify opposition” to defendant’s motion (CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff, however, failed to demonstrate that it needed these documents in order to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the supplies at issue were medically necessary (see Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; GZ Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d [*2]146[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50491[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]), and that it had served discovery demands during the ample opportunity that it had to seek discovery of such documentation before the summary judgment motion was made (see Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon [reported as Larendon] Natl. Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 137[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51452[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Urban Radiology, P.C., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U]).

In light of the foregoing, as well as the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) finding that defendant’s claim denial forms were timely and properly mailed, a finding which plaintiff does not dispute on appeal, and since plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that there was a lack medical necessity for the supplies at issue (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]), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2010

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

Held two peer review reports in admissible form, with a factual basis and medical rationale, established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to rebut them or show it needed the reviewers' underlying documents under CPLR 3212(f).

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

Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50987(U))The insurer established premature claims for unanswered verification and lack of medical necessity for the remaining claims.
Gz Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50491(U))The provider failed to rebut the insurer's peer review report or show that discovery was needed to oppose partial summary judgment.
Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Larendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51452(U))The provider failed to rebut the insurer's peer review or justify deferring summary judgment to obtain the reviewer's underlying records.
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

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50189(U))The insurer's peer reviews established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to offer a meaningful rebuttal.
New Way Med. Supply Corp. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50880(U))The insurer's peer reviews were unrebutted because appellate review was limited to the papers Civil Court considered.
Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51771(U))The insurer's timely denial and affirmed peer review raised a triable issue of medical necessity for the supplied equipment.
All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51417(U))The insurer's denial preserved its medical-necessity defense, and an unrebutted affirmed peer review established that the supplies were unnecessary.
Sky Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50868(U))The provider's medical affidavit failed to rebut the insurer's peer review showing that the disputed supply lacked medical necessity.