March 10, 2010

Co-Op City Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group (2010 NY Slip Op 50452(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/co-op-city-chiropractic-p-c-v-mercury-ins-group-2010-ny-slip-op50452u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: March 10, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 50452(U) · 26 Misc 3d 145(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity (see the maps)

Cite as

Co-Op City Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group, 26 Misc 3d 145(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50452(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 provider's treating chiropractor's affidavit raised a triable issue of fact concerning the medical necessity of the services. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's action for assigned no-fault benefits on lack-of-medical-necessity grounds. Its chiropractor's affidavit and peer review report supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for concluding that the services were unnecessary. The treating chiropractor's opposing affidavit nevertheless sufficed to create a factual dispute. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, leaving in place the denial of the branch of the insurer's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Co-Op City Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group (2010 NY Slip Op 50452(U))

[*1]

Co-Op City Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group

2010 NY Slip Op 50452(U) [26 Misc 3d 145(A)]

Decided on March 10, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 10, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-402 Q C.

Co-Op City Chiropractic, P.C. a/a/o Gloria Fagan, Respondent,
against
Mercury Insurance Group, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Leslie J. Purificacion, J.), entered November 18, 2008. 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 affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. As limited by the brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit and peer review report of defendant’s chiropractor set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the chiropractor’s conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered (Exclusive Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group, 25 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52273[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; 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]). However, the affidavit of plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services rendered (cf. Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U], *2 [App Term, 2d, 11th & [*2]13th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 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: Provider's evidence rebutted the insurer's showing (triable issue, or necessity found at trial)

Held the insurer's chiropractor's peer review set forth a factual basis and medical rationale, but the treating chiropractor's opposing affidavit raised a triable issue of fact on medical necessity, so the insurer's motion was properly denied.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followedDistinguished or limited

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 94 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Exclusive Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group (2009 NY Slip Op 52273(U))The insurer's timely denials and unrebutted peer reviews established that the medical equipment lacked medical necessity.
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.
Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52321(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer established timely denials and lack of medical necessity, and the provider's chiropractor failed to rebut the insurer's showing.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.

Similar decisions

AJS Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50208(U))The insurer's chiropractic IME report and supporting affidavit established lack of medical necessity, and the provider offered no rebuttal evidence.
Bay Plaza Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52315(U))The provider's chiropractor affidavit raised a triable issue of medical necessity despite the insurer's supported peer review.
Mutual Care Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51734(U))The insurer's peer-review evidence established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to submit a meaningful medical rebuttal.
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.
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.