SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Tyrone, David, Respondent,

against

 Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered August 12, 2015, deemed from a judgment of that court entered January 13, 2016 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 12, 2015 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 $1,819.12.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered August 12, 2015 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion 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 action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered August 12, 2015, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. Defendant’s appeal from the order entered August 12, 2015 is deemed to be from the judgment entered pursuant thereto on January 13, 2016 (see CPLR 5512 [a]).

While defendant failed to include res judicata as an affirmative defense in its answer or [*2]move to dismiss the complaint on that ground pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) prior to serving its answer, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata based upon orders in a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Kings County. We note that “an unpleaded defense may serve as the basis for granting summary judgment in the absence of surprise or prejudice to the opposing party” (Sullivan v American Airlines, Inc., 80 AD3d 600, 602 [2011]). Plaintiff’s papers in the Civil Court failed to allege any prejudice (see Barrett v Kasco Constr. Co., 84 AD2d 555, 556 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 830 [1982]; J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51071[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016])or surprise (see CPLR 3018 [b]; Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883, 885 [1981]; J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C., 52 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51071[U]; Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50096[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party” (Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912, 913-914 [2016]). However, plaintiff herein was neither named nor served in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. Moreover, plaintiff was not in privity with the injured party, as the assignment of benefits had been executed before defendant commenced the declaratory judgment action. Thus, plaintiff had no full and fair opportunity to defend its interests in that action (see J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 54 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; Magic Recovery Med. & Surgical Supply Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 67 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on res judicata.

With respect to plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, although the affidavit of plaintiff’s employee, who stated that he had personally mailed the claim form to defendant, was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the claim had been received by defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]), defendant rebutted the presumption of receipt with an affidavit by its claims representative, who described defendant’s procedures for receiving mail and stated that defendant had not received the bill at issue. Consequently, as defendant raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff’s cross motion, the Civil Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

Amos Weinberg, Esq., for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered April 3, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an oral order of that court issued July 31, 2013 dismissing the action based on plaintiff’s failure to proceed at trial.

ORDERED that the order entered April 3, 2014 is affirmed, without costs.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was commenced in 2002. In 2013, the case was scheduled for trial for the first time. On July 31, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel appeared only to seek an adjournment. Plaintiff concedes that it had no witness and was not ready to proceed. The court denied plaintiff’s request for an adjournment and dismissed the action pursuant to Uniform Rules for the New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.14 (b) (2). About seven months later, plaintiff moved to vacate that dismissal, which motion was denied by order entered April 3, 2014, from which plaintiff appeals.

Where an action has been dismissed because of a default by a plaintiff, to vacate the dismissal “it [is] incumbent upon [the] plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action” (V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 24 Misc [*2]3d 32, 34 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see CPLR 5015 [a]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Plaintiff failed to sustain that burden here. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Civil Court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for an adjournment was an abuse of discretion (see Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332 [2003]). Plaintiff did not show why it could not have been prepared to proceed on the day set for the trial of the then 11-year-old case, or why it had not attempted to obtain an adjournment in advance, or any other extenuating circumstances. Plaintiff also did not explain why it had waited seven months to move to vacate its default. In any event, plaintiff has not demonstrated that it has a meritorious cause of action.

Accordingly, the order entered April 3, 2014 is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 06, 2018

27526/2017E

Counsel for Petitioner: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

The following papers numbered 1 to _2_ Read on this motion, VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD Noticed on September 14, 2017 and duly submitted on the Motion Calendar of September 14, 2017:

PAPERS NUMBERED

Notice of Motion- Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed 1,2

Upon the foregoing papers, the petitioner Maidstone Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) seeks an order (1) pursuant to CPLR 7511, vacating the award of the master arbitrator that affirmed an award of the lower arbitrator finding that the respondent Medical Records Retrieval Inc., d/b/a Kamara Medical Supplies, a/a/o Sandra Pereira (“Respondent”) was entitled to compensation for services performed (a) from March 12, 2016 through April 22, 2016, in the sum of $3,750.00; (b) from March 12, 2016 until April 1, 2016, in the sum of $1,323.00; and (c) from March 12, 2016 in the sum of $19.50 and $34.22, and entering judgment in favor of Petitioner vacating the award, and remanding the matter to a different arbitrator to compute the amount due and owing under the Medicaid fee schedule, which would be 1/6 times the wholesale price of the CPM and CTU, divided by 30, times the amount of days the items were rented, or $1031.27; (2) such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and equitable, and (3) costs and disbursements as taxed by the clerk, including Petitioner’s $325 master arbitration fee. The petition is unopposed.

In cases of compulsory arbitration, judicial review of a master arbitrator’s award is restricted to the grounds set forth in Article 75 of the CPLR (see Matter of Petrofsky, 54 NY2d [*2]207, 210-11 [1981]). The “governing consideration is ‘whether the decision was rational or had a plausible basis'” (Curley v. State Farm Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 240, 242 [1st Dept. 2000], citing Petrofsky at 211). “Vacatur of an arbitrator’s award is statutorily limited to occasions involving fraud, corruption or bias… or occasions where the arbitrator exceeded his or her power, or so imperfectly executed it so that a final and definite award was not made” (id., citing CPLR 7511[b]; Lopez 375 v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 257 AD2d 530 [1st Dept. 1999]). The party seeking vacatur must prove that the award was irrational, in violation of public policy, or in excess of the arbitrator’s powers (id., citing In re Travelers Insurance Company v. Job, 239 AD2d 289 [1st Dept. 1997]). Furthermore, “‘an arbitrator’s award will not be set side even though the arbitrator misconstrues or disregards [the proof] or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it violates strong public policy or is totally irrational'” (id., quoting Sims v. Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 376 [1st Dept. 1998]). While an arbitration award may be deemed arbitrary and capricious where it does not follow “clear precedent,” (Matter of State Ins. Fund [Country-Wide Ins. Co.], 276 AD2d 432, [1st Dept. 2000]), vacatur should not be granted if the decision had a reasonable hypothesis and the controlling issue is “unsettled and subject to conflicting court decisions” (see Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 89 NY2d 214, 224 [1996]).

In this matter, although the petition is unopposed, it must be denied because Petitioner has failed to carry its initial burden of demonstrating that vacatur of the arbitration awards is warranted. Petitioner received billing for a CPM knee machine (Code E0935) in the sum of $3,570.00, representing 42 days of usage (March 12, 2016 – April 22, 2016), at the billed rate of $85.00 per day, and billing for a water circulating pump (Code E0236) in the sum of $1,323.00, representing 21 days of usage (March 12, 2016 – April 1, 2016), billed at a rate of $125.00 per day. Petitioner was billed for other services as well, but it only disputes the billing rate for the aforementioned two items. Petitioner asserted that this billing was in excess of the applicable fee schedule. At the arbitration hearing, and in the instant petition, Petitioner argued that the applicable fee schedule for the above-referenced durable medical equipment (DME) is limited to 1/6th of the acquisition cost of the equipment on a monthly basis. In support of this position, Petitioner relied primarily on what it characterizes are “opinion letters” from the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) and the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”), as well as a 2016 Queens County Supreme Court decision. Petitioner also submits “frequently asked questions” the were published on the WCB website which states that the reimbursement rate of CPM (E0935) rental shall not exceed the amount specified in the Durable Medical Equipment Manual – Policy Guidelines – see section on “Rental of Durable Medical Equipment.” Those policy guidelines state – “for DME items that have been assigned a Maximum Reimbursement Amount (MRA), the rental fee is 10%^[FN1] of the listed MRA. For DME items that do not have a MRA, the rental fee is calculated at 10% of the equipment provider’s acquisition cost.” Petitioner argued that its documentation established that where, as here, the DME items have not been assigned a Maximum Reimbursement Amount (“MRA”), the rental fee is calculated at 1/6th of the equipment provider’s acquisition cost.

The lower arbitrator considered these arguments, and specifically found that the DME at issue – the CPM and the CTU – were not listed in the Medicaid DME fee schedule, and no specific amount had been set by the DOH for the monthly rental of those items. While the arbitrator understood the calculations made by Petitioners’ professional coder, he noted that coder’s methodology was flawed because the DOH had indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2016, that according to 12 NYCRR section 442.2(g), the Medicaid Policy Guidelines and Medical Policy Manual are not to be included in the Medicaid DME fee schedule except to the extent that such documents contain the Medicaid DME fee schedule. The lower arbitrator thus rejected Petitioner’s fee schedule defense, and found that the billing was proper in accordance with 12 NYCRR 442.2. The master arbitrator affirmed these findings, holding that the arbitration interpretation of the evidence and applicable law pertaining to this fee schedule dispute was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

After review of the instant petition, this Court finds that the arbitration awards were supported by a rational and plausible basis and were not contrary to clear precedent. 12 NYCRR 442.2(b) provides that “[t]he maximum permissible monthly charge for such equipment, supplies and services provided on a rental basis shall not exceed the lower of the monthly rental charge to the general public or the price determined by the New York State Department of Health area office. The total accumulated monthly rental charges shall not exceed the fee amount allowed under the Medicaid fee schedule” (emphasis added). Petitioner’s submissions fail to establish that the New York DOH area office has set or determined a price for the DME at issue. The June 8, 2016 letter from the DOH senior attorney established that the earlier July 2014 letter was clearly not an instance where DOH made such a determination. Furthermore, the correspondence from the WCB employee did not constitute an official “interpretation of a regulation” or an “informal opinion” of the agency’s regulations (compare Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v. Novello, 100 NY2d 273, 280 [2003]; A.M. Medical Services, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 101 AD3d 53, 64 [2nd Dept. 2012]). Contrary to Petitioners’ contentions, the arbitrator also had a rational basis for determining that the Medicaid policy guidelines are inapplicable to these facts (see 12 NYCRR 442.2[g]). Even if the Medicaid guidelines are applicable here, as noted in the WCB “FAQ,” they only state that the “1/6th” (10% as of July 1, 2016) calculation of rental fee applies where the DME items “do not have a MRA.” It is rational to conclude that this calculation only applies to DME items that are listed in the fee schedule but are not assigned a MRA value. Where, as here, the DME items are not listed at all on the Medicaid fee schedule, the Department of Health has not determined a monthly rental charge. Under these circumstances, the applicable monthly rental charge will be the rate charged to the general public (12 NYCRR §442.2[b]). Petitioner argues that its contentions further the cost containment policies behind the no-fault system, however, engaging in such an analysis goes beyond the narrow issue that is before this Court (see Curley v. State Farm Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 240, 242).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the petition is denied, and the Master Arbitration Award is confirmed (CPLR 7511[e]).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: April 4, 2018
Hon. Mary Ann Brigantti, J.S.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:According to Petitioners’ professional coder, the Medicaid Policy Guidelines changed the reimbursement formula from 1/6th to 10% of the acquisition cost on July 1, 2016.

[*1]

Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY (Marshall D. Sweetbaum and John S. McDonnell of counsel), for appellant.

Farber Brocks & Zane LLP, Garden City, NY (Tracy L. Frankel and William R. Brocks, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated June 9, 2015, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated December 9, 2015, which denied the petition and granted the application of Travelers Companies, Inc., to confirm the award, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered March 24, 2016, which, upon the order, is in favor of Travelers Companies, Inc., and against the petitioner in the principal sum of $25,000.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to Travelers Companies, Inc.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

An individual insured by Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) and an individual insured by Travelers Companies, Inc. (hereinafter Travelers), were involved in a motor vehicle accident. In connection with that accident, Travelers paid its insured $75,000, representing coverage for basic economic loss and optional basic economic loss. Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (a), Allstate reimbursed Travelers in the amount of $50,000 for the payment made to Travelers’ insured. Travelers then sought, through arbitration, to recover from Allstate the remainder of its payment to the insured. The matter was submitted to an arbitration panel. The arbitrators determined that Travelers was entitled to recoup the entire $75,000 payment to its insured and awarded Travelers $25,000.

Allstate filed a petition in the Supreme Court to vacate the arbitration award. [*2]Travelers opposed the petition, and requested that the award be confirmed. In an order dated December 9, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. The court then issued a judgment in favor of Travelers in the principal sum of $25,000. Allstate appeals.

To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding such as this one (see Insurance Law § 5105 [b]) “must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; see Matter of Fiduciary Ins. Co. v American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 132 AD3d 40, 45-46 [2015]; Matter of Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. v High Point Prop. & Cas. Co., 127 AD3d 980 [2015]; Matter of Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 123 AD3d 933 [2014]). “Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether ‘any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation’ ” (Matter of Fiduciary Ins. Co. v American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 132 AD3d at 46, quoting Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442, 454 [1980]; see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 224).

Here, the arbitrators’ determination that Travelers was entitled to recoup the entire payment made to its insured pursuant to basic economic loss and optional basic economic loss coverage was not arbitrary and capricious. Rather, it was rationally based on the relevant statutes and regulations (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a], [b]; 11 NYCRR 65-1.1, 65-1.2).

Travelers’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Austin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Decided on March 23, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS