June 4, 2010

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50994(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/innovative-chiropractic-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50994u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: June 4, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 50994(U) · 27 Misc 3d 141(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50994(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 review established lack of medical necessity, and the provider raised no triable issue in response. After the Civil Court denied both parties' summary judgment applications, the insurer appealed only the denial of its cross motion. The insurer established timely mailing of denials asserting lack of medical necessity and submitted its peer review chiropractor's affidavit and report. Those submissions supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for concluding that the services were not medically necessary. The provider left that showing unrebutted. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50994(U))

[*1]

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 50994(U) [27 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on June 4, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ
2009-617 Q C.

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. as assignee of YOLANDA TORRES, Respondent,
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered November 5, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 both motions. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established that it had timely mailed (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims at issue on the ground of lack of medical necessity. In support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant also submitted, among other things, an affidavit from its peer review chiropractor and a peer review report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services 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]). Defendant’s showing that the services were not medically necessary was unrebutted by plaintiff. Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 04, 2010

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 peer review chiropractor's affidavit and report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale, and the provider did not rebut the showing, so the insurer's cross motion was 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 it timely mailed the denials based on lack of medical necessity.

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.

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.

Similar decisions

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U))The treating doctor's conclusory reaffirmation of medical necessity failed to rebut the insurer's sworn peer review and IME reports.
AJS Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52446(U))The insurer's unrebutted chiropractic peer review established lack of medical necessity for the provider's first cause of action.
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.
BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50882(U))The insurer's peer review report and reviewing chiropractor's affidavit established lack of medical necessity, which the provider failed to rebut.
Intuitive Chiropractic, P.C. v REdland Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51461(U))The insurer's sworn peer review established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to rebut that showing.