May 13, 2010

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/innovative-chiropractic-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50884u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: May 13, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U) · 27 Misc 3d 137(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 137(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50884(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 treating doctor's conclusory reaffirmation of medical necessity failed to rebut the insurer's sworn peer review and IME reports. The insurer established timely mailing of its denials and submitted chiropractors' reports supplying a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the treatments unnecessary. The treating doctor's opposing affidavit merely reaffirmed that the services were medically necessary without referring to or discussing the insurer's chiropractors' determinations. It therefore raised no triable issue. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the provider's judgment, vacated the underlying order, granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the provider's cross motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U))

[*1]

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U) [27 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on May 13, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 13, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-803 Q C.

Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. as assignee of Wanda Batista, Respondent,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered March 18, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered April 2, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 18, 2009 order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,250.90.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered March 18, 2009 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s treatments were not medically necessary, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

The affidavit submitted by defendant’s senior litigation examiner sufficiently established [*2]that the denial of claim forms at issue were timely mailed pursuant to defendant’s standard office practice or procedure (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 sworn peer review report and the sworn independent medical examination report by defendant’s chiropractors provided a factual basis and medical rationale for their determination that the treatments at issue were not medically necessary (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]). Consequently, defendant’s moving papers made a prima facie showing that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and shifted the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

The affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as it merely consisted of a conclusory statement by the affiant, the doctor who had provided the treatments, that he reaffirmed his opinion that the disputed services were medically necessary. The affiant did not refer to, or discuss, the determination of defendant’s chiropractors. Consequently, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact with respect to medical necessity (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]), and defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered March 18, 2009 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 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 sworn peer review and IME reports made a prima facie showing, and the treating doctor's conclusory reaffirmation of necessity, not addressing the insurer's chiropractors, raised no triable issue.

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 senior litigation examiner's affidavit sufficiently established timely mailing of the denials under the insurer's standard office practice.

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.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)) FollowedThe provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Heavenly Points Acupuncture v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50895(U)) FollowedThe insurer established lack of medical necessity, and the provider's conclusory expert affidavit failed to raise a triable issue.

Similar decisions

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.
Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50994(U))The insurer's peer review established lack of medical necessity, and the provider raised no triable issue in response.
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.
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.
American Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50346(U))The provider's treating chiropractor's sworn letter raised a factual issue on medical necessity despite the insurer's peer review.