SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 16, 2011, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Per Curiam.

Order (Fernando Tapia, J. ), entered March 16, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, and according them the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must in the context of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87—88 [1994]), we find the complaint, as amplified by the affidavit in opposition of plaintiff’s billing manager (see Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Wojciech Perkowski, Inc., 291 AD2d 219 [2002]), sufficient to state a cause of action for recovery of first-party no-fault benefits. Nor was the affidavit of defendant’s no-fault litigation examiner so “essentially undeniable” as to qualify as documentary evidence that conclusively refutes any claim that plaintiff might have (see Mason v First Cent. Nat. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 86 AD3d 854, 855 [2011]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:10, at 21—22).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 12, 2013

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, March 12, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury (Albert J. Galatan of counsel), for appellant. Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, LLC, Garden City (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.

{**39 Misc 3d at 16} OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered April 17, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

A related Supreme Court action brought by the defendant insurer against various medical providers resulted in a declaration that defendant was entitled to deny all no-fault claims arising from injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff’s assignor (Cuffie) in the underlying July 2, 2008 motor vehicle accident. Since the plaintiff medical supplies provider was not a party to the declaratory judgment action it is not bound by Supreme Court’s determination, as it did not have a full and fair opportunity to contest the issues in that proceeding (see Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 [1981]). Although plaintiff’s assignor was a named party in the prior action, plaintiff cannot be deemed to be in privity with its assignor, since the declaratory judgment action was commenced after the assignment (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979]).

Schoenfeld, J. (concurring). In light of the Court of Appeals’ holding in Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez (46 NY2d 481 [1979]), I join my colleagues in voting to affirm the order denying summary judgment to the defendant insurer. Considerations of due process prohibit binding a party to the result of an action in which that party has not been given an opportunity to be heard. I write separately to [*2]acknowledge that the outcome reached today does not serve to promote the purposes of this State’s No-Fault Law to provide a less costly, more efficient automobile accident reparation system and to ease court congestion (see Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 50-51 [1975]).

As (now retired) Justice Golia properly recognized in closely analogous circumstances, no-fault actions do not fit squarely within the Gramatan rule, given “the unique nature and reality of the assignment of claims for first-party benefits under the Insurance{**39 Misc 3d at 17} Law and the no-fault regulations of this State” (Magic Recovery Med. & Surgical Supply Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 67, 69 [2010 dissenting op]). That being so, and in view of the prior Supreme Court judgment declaring that plaintiff’s assignor and the assignee providers named as defendants in that action “are not entitled to first-party benefits” stemming from the subject motor vehicle accident due to the assignor’s “material misrepresentations in the procurement of the insurance policy,” it is not unreasonable to say that the denial of summary judgment dismissing this assignee provider’s claim tends to exalt form over substance, delaying the seemingly inevitable dismissal of the claim until after trial. Nonetheless, on balance, I feel compelled to adhere to the rule set forth in Gramatan without a signal to the contrary from a higher appellate authority. Lastly, and parenthetically, it is noted that in the event the plaintiff assignee does not ultimately succeed against defendant on the no-fault claim, plaintiff could seek redress against the assignor under the clear terms of the assignment of benefits form.

Lowe, III, P.J., and Torres, J., concur; Schoenfeld, J., concurs in a separate opinion.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Kings County, March 11, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP, Armonk (Jason T. George of counsel), for petitioner. The Geller Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn (Jeffrey Silber of counsel), for respondent.

{**39 Misc 3d at 583} OPINION OF THE COURT

Francois A. Rivera, J.

By order to show cause and petition filed on November 26, 2012, petitioner Infinity Insurance Company sought an order pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to temporarily stay an arbitration that was demanded by the respondent, Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., until the court decided Infinity’s request for a permanent stay.

Daily Medical has opposed the petition.

Background

On November 26, 2012, Infinity commenced the instant special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) seeking a permanent stay of an arbitration demanded by Daily Medical by filing an order to show cause and verified petition. Infinity’s petition alleges, among other things, that it issued an automobile insurance policy to Derrick St. Louis which it rescinded pursuant to Pennsylvania law based on a misrepresentation made by St. Louis in the procurement of the subject policy.

Daily Medical, as assignee of St. Louis, filed a request to arbitrate with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking reimbursement of approximately $1,800 for no-fault benefits it provided to St. Louis. AAA set a hearing date of January 15, 2013. Infinity contends that Daily Medical has no right to arbitrate because of the proper rescission of the subject policy ab initio.

Motion Papers

Infinity’s motion papers consist of an order to show cause, a verified petition, two affirmations of its counsel, an affidavit of its claim adjuster and seven exhibits labeled A through G. Exhibit A is a copy of AAA’s notice of arbitration. Exhibit B is described as [*2]the declaration page of the subject policy. Exhibit C is described as the insured’s application for the subject policy. Exhibit D is described as a rescission letter purportedly sent to the insured. Exhibit E is described as correspondence sent to the insured. Exhibit F is described as a check which was purportedly sent to St. Louis to return the premiums he paid on the subject policy. Exhibit G is described as correspondence sent to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office.{**39 Misc 3d at 584}

Daily Medical’s opposition papers consist of the affirmation of its counsel and three annexed exhibits labeled A through C. Exhibit A is the respondent’s demand for arbitration. Exhibit B is the answer dated August 10, 2012, which Infinity served upon AAA and upon Daily Medical in response to Daily Medical’s arbitration demand. Exhibit C is described as a document from the website maintained by the New York State Department of Financial Services which lists the petitioner as an entity authorized to do business in the State of New York.

Infinity replied with an affirmation of its counsel.

Law and Application

Infinity claims that under Pennsylvania law, it had the right to rescind St. Louis’ insurance policy based on a misrepresentation he made regarding where the car was garaged when he first applied for insurance. Infinity further claims that its rescission of the subject policy voids the arbitration clause contained therein, such that there is no longer any insurance coverage or any agreement to arbitrate.

Daily Medical contends, among other things, that Infinity’s petition is time-barred and supported by uncertified and inadmissible documents. Daily Medical also contends that Infinity cannot seek a stay because it has already answered and participated in the arbitration proceeding.

By order issued on January 11, 2013, at oral argument of the instant petition, the court denied Infinity’s application for a temporary stay of the subject arbitration and reserved decision on the petition for a permanent stay. For the reasons set forth below Infinity’s application for a permanent stay must be denied.

It is always useful to bear in mind that the announced policy of this State favors and encourages arbitration as a means of conserving the time and resources of the courts and the contracting parties (Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91, 95 [1975]; see also McSpedon v Profile Elec., 137 AD2d 669, 670 [2d Dept 1988]).

Pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b), a party may apply to stay an arbitration on the grounds that a valid agreement to arbitrate has not been made or has not been complied with, or that the claim would be barred by the relevant statute of limitations had the claim been asserted in a court of the State (see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1 [1980]). Further, a court may stay arbitration when the particular claim{**39 Misc 3d at 585} to be arbitrated is not within the scope of the arbitration agreement (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Amalgamated Tr. Union of Am., AFL-CIO, Local 1056, 284 AD2d [*3]466, 468 [2d Dept 2001]).

In instances when the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement is timely raised by a party seeking a stay of arbitration or opposing an application to compel arbitration, issues relating to the validity of the contract must be determined by the court (Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280 [1st Dept 1972], appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 [1973]).

CPLR 7503 (c) mandates that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of the demand for arbitration (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Urban, 78 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2d Dept 2010]). “An insurer which fails to seek a stay of arbitration within 20 days after being served with a notice of intention or demand to arbitrate under CPLR 7503 (c) is generally precluded from objecting to the arbitration thereafter” (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Argueta, 59 AD3d 446, 447 [2d Dept 2009]).

Infinity’s motion papers contain a copy of the notice it received from AAA dated October 26, 2012. However, Infinity did not state whether it received a demand for arbitration other than the October 26, 2012 notice from AAA. Daily Medical, on the other hand, claimed that it served a demand to arbitrate on August 1, 2012. It is unclear whether the documents submitted by Daily Medical included a complete copy of its demand to arbitrate.

A demand to arbitrate that fails to identify the agreement under which arbitration is sought or omits the 20-day warning specified by CPLR 7503 (c) deprives the party seeking arbitration of the preclusive effect of the statute. In other words, the opponent may raise threshold issues after the expiration of 20 days from receipt of the demand (see Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v Tse, 102 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2013]).

Therefore, based on the date the instant petition was commenced, Infinity’s instant petition may be untimely. However, the court cannot definitely determine that issue without a complete copy of the demand notice.

CPLR 7503 (b) specifically states in pertinent part that a party who has not participated in the arbitration and who has not made or been served with an application to compel arbitration may apply to stay arbitration on the ground that a valid{**39 Misc 3d at 586} agreement was not made or has not been complied with or that the claim sought to be arbitrated is barred by limitation under subdivision (b) of section 7502.

“Because arbitrability is a threshold question going to the arbitrator’s power to resolve the dispute, a party can seek judicial intervention to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable before consenting to arbitration. Moreover, the CPLR requires that in order to raise the ‘did-they-agree-to-arbitrate’ prong of arbitrability in a motion to vacate, a party must move to stay before participating in arbitration” (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]).

Daily Medical annexed a copy of the cover letter and enclosures that Infinity sent [*4]to AAA in support of its contention that Infinity had participated in an arbitration proceeding. Infinity claimed in its reply affirmation sending these documents to AAA did not constitute participation in the arbitration.

The cover letter dated August 10, 2012 acknowledged Infinity’s receipt of Daily Medical’s arbitration request. It stated that the claim was for an accident that occurred in New Jersey under Infinity’s Pennsylvania policy. It opined that New York State no-fault benefits did not apply, and because of that its belief that arbitration through AAA also should not apply. It advised that the claim was being investigated and would be paid if appropriate in accordance with Pennsylvania law. It further requested that Daily Medical consider voluntarily withdrawing its arbitration request. It also stated that there were enclosures without specifying what they were. The enclosed documents included a New Jersey police crash investigation report of St. Louis’ car accident. Also included was a copy of the declaration page of the subject policy and three letters denominated as “explanation of benefits.” Each one of the explanation of benefits letters stated that Infinity received Daily Medical’s request for reimbursement on April 16, 2012. In one letter Daily Medical sought $844.13, in the other it sought $502.63 and in the third it requested $464.44. Infinity stated in each of the letters that it would not pay the claim. Also included was another copy of the cover letter showing a postmark by AAA dated August 20, 2012.

Two months after submitting the August 10, 2012 letter to AAA and Daily Medical, Infinity commenced the instant special{**39 Misc 3d at 587} proceeding by order to show cause seeking a temporary stay pending resolution of its application for a permanent stay of the arbitration. CPLR 7503 (b) entitles only a party who has not participated in the arbitration to apply to stay arbitration on the ground that a valid agreement was not made. (Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester, 90 NY2d 255, 263 [1997].) Therefore, when parties to arbitration of a claim, including parties who never executed an agreement to arbitrate, participate in the arbitration, they waive their right to a judicial determination of the arbitrability of the claim. (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 78-79 [2003].) Once they have taken part in the arbitration proceeding by serving and filing an answer to an arbitration demand and participated in selecting the arbitrator, they no longer are entitled to stay further progress of the arbitration proceeding, even if they are not subject to any arbitration agreement (Nachmani v By Design, LLC, 74 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2010]).

Contrary to Infinity’s contention, by sending the aforementioned documents to AAA it did participate in the arbitration proceeding. Infinity’s participation in the subject arbitration effectively bars its application for a stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b). In light of the foregoing, the court need not and does not address Daily Medical’s contention that Infinity’s instant petition was untimely and supported by uncertified and inadmissible documents.

Therefore, Infinity’s motion for a permanent stay of the subject arbitration is denied and [*5]the instant special proceeding is dismissed.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered March 1, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered March 30, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 1, 2011 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 $2,259.69.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered March 1, 2011 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, pursuant to CPLR 3211 and CPLR 3212, to dismiss the complaint. Defendant contended that, pursuant to Roggio v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (66 NY2d 260 [1985]), plaintiff was precluded from litigating its claims for reimbursement of assigned first-party no-fault benefits since plaintiff’s assignor had, prior to this action, elected to arbitrate claims for no-fault benefits which he had not assigned and which arose out of the same accident as was involved in the instant action. Consequently, defendant argued that arbitration was the only proper forum for plaintiff to seek recovery of its assigned no-fault claims. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion, contending that it was not precluded from litigating the instant action since its assignor had assigned his no-fault benefits to it prior to the commencement of the arbitration of the assignor’s claims and since the plaintiff herein was not a party to that arbitration. Plaintiff also cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered March 1, 2011, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the motion papers established that the assignment of benefits predated the assignor’s election to arbitrate and that, therefore, the Roggio case was not applicable, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. Defendant appeals from the March 1, 2011 order. A judgment was subsequently entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,259.69, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

The Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion. As the Civil Court correctly noted, [*2]since plaintiff’s assignor had executed the assignment of benefits to plaintiff prior to his commencement of his own arbitration, the holding in Roggio (66 NY2d 260) does not apply here and, thus, plaintiff was not precluded from litigating the claims at issue in this action (see Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 132[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51294[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 21 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 9 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).

However, the Civil Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing supervisor, which was missing several paragraphs, was insufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion papers constituted proof of the fact and the amount of loss sustained (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 21 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered March 1, 2011 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion is denied.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 05, 2013

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered July 20, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered July 20, 2011, modified to dismiss plaintiff’s first through sixth, and ninth trough twelfth causes of action; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the no-fault claims set forth in the first through sixth, and ninth through twelfth causes of action, by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin at 560).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: March 01, 2013

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

6352/11

Law Office of Jennifer M. Cassandra (plaintiff)

24 Shepard Avenue

Staten Island, NY 10314

Law Office of Teresa M. Spina (defendant)

170 Froehlich Farm Boulevard

Woodbury, NY 11747

Philip S. Straniere, J.

Do something special

Anything special

And you’ll get better because

You gotta get gimmick

If you want to get applause.^[FN1]

[*2]Plaintiff, Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC (Forest) assignee of John Russo (Russo), commenced this action against the defendant, GEICO Insurance Company (GEICO), alleging that the defendant failed to pay for first party medical benefit services rendered to Russo as required by the New York State No-Fault Insurance Law [Article 51 New York State Insurance Law]. A trial was held on January 29, 2013. Both sides were represented by counsel.

The parties stipulated that the plaintiff had timely submitted the billings in question and that the defendant had timely denied payment based on “lack of medical necessity.” The services in question are high frequency pulsed electromagnetic stimulation treatments performed by plaintiff using a TMR 1200 machine manufactured by Scientific Imaginetics. TMR stands for “therapeutic magnetic resonance” and is a method of providing high frequency electromagnetic stimulation on patients in order to facilitate pain relief. As explained by plaintiff’s witness, John D’Angelo, MD, the process has nothing to do with MRI’s-magnetic resonance imaging.

Plaintiff bills $800.00 for each of these TMR treatments and recommends for most patients a series of four to five treatment sessions with a maximum of ten to twelve sessions. Plaintiff is seeking to be paid $4,000.00 for five treatments given to Russo on December 8, 10, 13, 15, & 17, 2010.

The treatments were submitted to GEICO under Code 64999 which is used for an “unlisted neurological procedure.” Apparently if plaintiff had submitted the treatments under a standard recognized electro-stimulation code, plaintiff would have been paid. However, under the standard code carriers are required to make payment at a rate substantially less than that for Code 64999.

Plaintiff apparently taking a cue from Miss Mazeppa, Electra & Tessie Tura of “Gypsy” fame who sang the above cited lyrics, has found “something special” in using the TMR 1200, a relatively unique pain management modality for the treatment of pain by the use of high frequency electromagnetically produced waves. Plaintiff testified that there are only about fifty such machines in use in the United States and the TMR 1200 device costs about $150,000.00. Although there are other similar devices available, plaintiff is using the [*3]TMR 1200 which is manufactured by Scientific Imaginetics.^[FN2]

When first confronted with the name of the machine the court pondered if a TMR 1200 was either a type of racing car, an alumni group from Ten Mile River Scout Camp, or the machine Marvin the Martian used to try to eliminate the Earth from blocking his view of Venus.^[FN3] Plaintiff quickly dispelled any of these misconceptions and while testifying on rebuttal described the science of the machine and how it was designed to be part of a comprehensive pain management program.

Defendant’s denial of the claim was based on a “Peer Review” conducted by Edward Weiland, MD, on January 11, 2011 in which Weiland concluded that the clinical status of Russo did not warrant “multiple therapeutic magnetic resonance high frequency electromagnetic post therapy treatments” and that the procedure “would not have accelerated claimant’s clinical recovery” from an accident on October 22, 2010.

On the trial date, Dr. Weiland was unavailable to testify and the defendant called Mitchell Weisman, MD as its “re-peer doctor” and expert witness testifying as to the lack of the medical necessity of the procedures rendered by plaintiff after having reviewed the same records as Weiland as well as Weiland’s report. It was stipulated that Weisman was an expert in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation and that he could testify as the “Re-Peer Review” doctor.

Weisman agreed with Weiland’s conclusion that the procedure was not medically necessary. However, as an expert witness, Weisman opined that “TMR” and similar procedures are not generally accepted in the medical community as a valid treatment option. He stated that the normal electrical stimulation used in physical therapy is all that [*4]is required and that TMR and other high frequency based modalities are neither needed nor has it been established that they provide any benefit.

There are a few problems with defendant’s case. First, no where in his peer review does Weiland state that the TMR procedures were “not medically necessary.” He concludes that “medical justification has not been established.” The standard to be applied is lack of “medical necessity,” the term”medical justification” is not necessarily the same thing and does not meet the statutory/regulatory standard for evaluating the appropriateness of a treatment.

Second, although he recites the American Medical Association definition of “medical necessity” he fails to apply that definition to the specific facts of this claim.

Third, unlike Weisman who testified that TMR is not accepted in the medical community as a form of treatment, Weiland never addresses that issue, and implies that had there been some other documentation presented to him to review, he might have concluded that the procedures were necessary and that TMR is an appropriate treatment. Weiland justified his conclusion on the fact that there was no clinical basis for these treatments and that the customary modalities used in physical therapy should be sufficient to treat Russo.

The conclusions expressed by Weisman at trial cannot be accepted as they are beyond the scope of the Weiland Peer Review. Because Weiland never specifically found a “lack of medical necessity,” Weisman cannot amend that peer review to reach the conclusion that lack of medical necessity is the appropriate finding and thereby correct the deficiencies in the initial peer review report to which plaintiff was expected to respond at the trial..

Further, Weisman based his conclusion primarily on his assertion that TMR and similar treatments are not accepted in the medical community. It seems his opinion was secondarily, if at all, based on a lack of clinical findings to necessitate such treatments. Therefore, Weisman failed to reach his conclusion based on the same criteria used by Weiland. Weisman was in effect raising a new and different reason for denying payment, that is, the plaintiff’s seeking payment for a procedure not accepted in the medical community for the purpose used by the plaintiff. In general, plaintiffs are required only to rebut in litigation the grounds set forth in the denial by the carrier and not be surprised at trial by new grounds for rejecting payment of a claim.

The above being said these facts do create the interesting issue of whether the court can deny coverage and dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action based on the reasoning stated by the defendant’s expert at trial when the expert is testifying as to matters not used by the defendant to initially decline paying the claim. Weisman was qualified as an expert witness in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The function of an “expert” is to provide the trier of fact with information that would be beyond the knowledge of the general public. Applying this standard, it would seem that the court could accept the [*5]expert’s testimony as to whether TMR is an accepted treatment protocol recognized in the medical community, especially when the expert is subject to cross-examination by plaintiff’s counsel; the plaintiff was present in court for the expert’s testimony; was called as a rebuttal witness and given the opportunity to challenge the conclusions of defendant’s expert.

What is also causing the court to question the appropriateness of the TMR 1200 electromagnetic therapy procedure is the apparent lack of any studies to show that the high frequency pulsed electromagnetic stimulation has any benefit to a patient such as Russo or that it is accepted in the medical community. The fact that plaintiff testified that there are only fifty machines in the United States would tend to support a conclusion either that the therapy is a new and emerging one as postulated by plaintiff and that he is on the cutting edge and ahead of the community curve, or that it is not accepted in the medical community and considered experimental at best, as advocated by the defendant.

The website of Scientific Imaginetics, the manufacturer of the TMR 1200 warns that “TMR is intended for temporary symptomatic relief of chronic intractable pain”it goes on to list as one of its nine “Warnings” that “the TMR has no proven curative value.” In the area “Contraindications” the manufacturer warns, “Never use the device when pain syndromes are undiagnosed until the etiology is established.” This contraindication is of particular interest because other than X-rays, taken in the emergency room on the date of the accident, there appears to have been no diagnostic or objective tests conducted on Russo so as to determine the cause of his pain. Linking it to a car accident, does not necessarily mean the etiology has been established.

In fact, Johns Hopkins Medicine/Johns Hopkins Healthcare in a report dated 3/15/12 instituted a policy that “High Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Stimulation (also known as therapeutic magnetic resonance)’ would not be authorized for “Treatment of soft tissue injuries.” A similar conclusion was reached by Aetna in a report dated 4/27/12. Although both of these reports are generated by insurance companies, no report contradicting these findings was produced by plaintiff^[FN4].

In order for a medical device such as the TMR 1200 to be “approved” for use by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) the plaintiff must establish that:

there exists valid scientific evidence…which is sufficient to determine the

effectiveness of a device and from which it can fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that the device will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended or suggested in labeling the device [21 USCA §360c(a)(3)(B)(I)(ii)].

The FDA requires the person seeking approval of the device to provide adequate, well-controlled investigations which includes clinical investigations by qualified experts [*6]possessing scientific training and experience who could conclude that the device will have the effect it purports to have when used as directed [21 USCA §355(d)]. A device can be denied approval if the studies were not designed well, not quantifiable, and not otherwise conducted under applicable and essential principles of adequate, well-controlled clinical investigations [United States v An Article of Device…Diapulse, 768 F2d 826, 831 (1985)].

Plaintiff herein has failed to establish that the TMR 1200 is in fact FDA approved nor has plaintiff provided any independent studies to establish that this treatment modality is accepted in the medical community for the purposes for which plaintiff is using the device.However, the mere fact that the FDA has approved a device or procedure does not mean that the process is covered by insurance or Medicare [Svidler v US Dept of Health & Human Services, 2004 WL 2005781; Diapulse Corporation of America v Sebelius, 2010 WL 1037250 (EDNY)].

A similar issue as is presented in this litigation was before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, regarding whether the use of a device manufactured by Diapulse for treatment of persons by electromagnetic therapy would be covered under Medicare Part B [Diapulse Corporation of America v Sebelius, supra]. In regard to Medicare payments, the current status of such reimbursement requests is to be determined on a case by case basis. Medicare will not cover the electromagnetic therapy device but will cover the service provided by a physician or other medical clinician, thereby not allowing at home treatment. In this no-fault case the issue is not reimbursement for an “at home” device, it is for a physician provided service in the physicians office, which if a Medicare claim might be considered for payment.

For a service or a device to be covered by Medicare, it must be not only be safe, but also must be demonstrated as effective and generally accepted in the medical community, and an appropriate treatment [Estate of Aitken v Shalala, 986 F.Supp.57, 59 (Dist. Mass. 1997)].

As there are no reported cases involving electromagnetic therapy involving no-fault insurance claims nor are there any specific to the TMR 1200, the court is forced to analogize from these federal court rulings regarding other electromagnetic therapy protocols. It also would not make sense for one-third party source (Medicare) recognize that TMR treatments are reimbursable while another third party source(no-fault insurance) would find the treatments not covered based on lack of acceptance in the medical community. Either the procedure is accepted or it is not.

In rebuttal the physician who performed the TMR treatments, D’Angelo, explained how the process works and the benefits of using high frequency pulsed electromagnetic therapy to ease a patient’s pain. One of the reasons he recommends this treatment is that he believes it provides pain relief without the use of medication. Conceptually most people would agree that the less medication a person takes the better off they will be. However, as laudable as that goal may be, plaintiff in his rebuttal failed to reference any independent studies that document any real benefit from the TMR procedure. In fact, plaintiff did not [*7]articulate as to why this is a better protocol than regular low frequency electric stimulation therapy.

Clearly on a cost basis analysis justifying TMR that is billed at $800.00 a treatment session against the relatively low cost of the standard widely accepted electrical stimulation, which plaintiff testified is about $17.95 per session, and which most physical medicine practitioners utilize, is a huge burden to overcome. If that figure is accurate, a patient could undergo 44 regular electrical stimulation treatments for the cost of one by plaintiff using the TMR 1200 ^[FN5]. In a political and economic climate where rising health care costs are a concern to everyone, to require an insurance carrier to pay for treatments which are not widely accepted in the medical community and for which alternative less costly treatments are available does not make sense. Of course, this case has arisen in the “No-Fault Zone” where often procedures which either are non-emergency in nature or are being begun well after the date of the accident, are routinely paid by carriers when pre-approval would be required for the same treatments under any other type of insurance coverage.

Plaintiff testified that he recommends this procedure for patients who are not responding to conservative treatments. He asserts he is not recommending these treatments to patients who have experienced benefits from a conservative treatment plan. Yet the documents submitted in support of payment contradict that statement and reveal he is rendering these treatments within a relatively short period of time after the accident, often before the success of a standard course of treatment could be evaluated. In this case the accident was on October 22, 2010 and the first TMR treatment was on December 8, 2010, less than seven weeks later. There is no question that the injury received was related to the accident. The issue is whether the TMR is even recognized in the medical community as treatment for the injuries of Russo.

In light of this, the peer review physician Weiland, was correct in stating that such treatments are not “justified”either because less costly accepted treatment options had not been exhausted or from a cost/benefit analysis. It does not appear that cost standing alone is one of the criteria available to a carrier to disallow payment of a claim.

The court is reminded that science and improvements in medicine and health only advance when individuals are willing to experiment and take a chance on implementing new ideas and procedures. History is replete with examples such as Galileo Galilei who advocated a heliocentric solar system rather than the accepted thinking of his time of a geocentric one and was forced to recant his theories under the penalty of death; Edward Jenner who successfully developed a small pox vaccine and had to convince the medical establishment of its preventative abilities; or Joseph Lister who challenged the then current methods for treatment of wounds and promoted the use of antiseptics, and had the medical community accepted his teachings, perhaps James Garfield would not have died of the gunshot wound he received from Charles Guiteau. [*8]

On the other hand history is full of examples of “cures” for just about everything that “ails you” and hawked at “patent medicine shows” throughout America from real life examples such as Lydia Pickham’s Herb Medicine, Fletcher’s Castoria, and Kickapoo Indian Sagwa. To fictional ones like Al Capp’s “Kickapoo Joy Juice” from “Li’l Abner”; Jackie Gleason’s “Mother Fletcher’s” line of products; and “Pirelli’s Miracle Elixir” from Stephen Sondheim’s “Sweeney Todd.”

Conclusion:

Plaintiff should be encouraged to seek to find new treatments to benefit his patients. As noted by George and Ira Gershwin in “They All Laughed ^[FN6]” many people have had to advocate ideas and products which people at that time questioned but turned out to be accepted as the norm.

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus

When he said the world was round

They all laughed when Edison recorded sound

They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother

When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi

Wireless was phony

It’s all the same old cry….

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center

Now they’re fighting to get in

They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin

They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat

Hershey and his chocolate bar

Ford and his misery

Kept the laughers busy

That’s how people are….

Plaintiff may be on the cutting edge of a new therapy treatment for soft tissue injuries and if he firmly believes that the procedure benefits his patients, should continue to provide the services, track the results and use his findings to convince the medical community of the benefits of electromagnetic therapy for persons with complaints similar to Russo’s.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that high frequency electromagnetic therapy has been widely accepted in the medical community for the treatment of soft tissue injuries such as suffered by Russo in this accident. [*9]

Based on the fact that the defendant’s expert opined that the procedure is not accepted and that the plaintiff heard that testimony and had the opportunity to rebut it with evidence that it was accepted but failed to do so, the court must deny the claim for reimbursement.

In the event that the plaintiff can refute this presumption of nonacceptance with some independent recognized tests, the court will consider revisiting the issue in this or in another of the many open lawsuits for similar relief plaintiff has pending in this court.

Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has failed to rebut defendant’s defense. Plaintiff’s cause of action is dismissed.

Exhibits, if any, will be available at the office of the clerk of the court thirty days after receipt of a copy of this decision.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:February 27, 2013

Staten Island, NYHON. PHILIP S. STRANIERE

Judge, Civil Court

ASN byon

Footnotes

Footnote 1:A rearrangement of the order of the lyrics to “You Gotta Have A Gimmick” from “Gypsy” Music by Jule Styne, Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.

Footnote 2: Not to be confused with the TMR 1200 made by Patz and described as a vertical food mixer.

Footnote 3: Marvin actually used an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

Footnote 4:It should be noted that the Aetna report does cite some studies where high-frequency pulsed electromagnetic stimulation has shown some benefits in wound healing and treatment of ulcers, Aetna denies coverage for all uses. Johns Hopkins recognizes for treatment of certain types of ulcers and certain wound therapies. Neither of them recognize it as beneficial for soft tissue injuries.

Footnote 5:By charging $800.00 for each treatment, plaintiff will recoup the cost of the TMR 1200 machine with 187.5 treatment sessions. Were plaintiff to have billed the service under standard electro-stimulation codes at $17.95 the machine would not be paid for until 8357 sessions had been completed.

Footnote 6:Written for the film “Shall We Dance” and sung by Fred Astaire.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, February 25, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP, Great Neck (Justin Skaferowsky of counsel), for plaintiff. Peter C. Merani, P.C., New York City (William Larkin of counsel), for defendant.

{**40 Misc 3d at 350} OPINION OF THE COURT

Carmen R. Velasquez, J.

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover statutory interest and attorney fees on no-fault insurance claims that were overdue when they were paid by the defendant. The plaintiff has submitted proof that, on the dates indicated, the following four claims were mailed to the defendant:

1. March 10, 2009—$71.49 for services rendered to Ana Oneal [*2]

2. June 11, 2009—$1,392.52 for services rendered to Salvadore Rivera

3. June 25, 2009—$107.64 for services rendered to Salvadore Rivera

4. June 25, 2009—$186.80 for services rendered to Salvadore Rivera.

The claims were each paid as follows:

claim 1 was paid by draft dated June 1, 2009 for $71.49

claim 2 was paid by draft dated July 29, 2009 for $1,392.52

claim 3 was paid by draft dated August 16, 2009 for $107.64

claim 4 was paid by draft dated August 10, 2009 for $103.95.

“Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, insurers are required either to pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date the applicant supplies proof of claim” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492, 493 [2006], citing Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997], rearg denied 90 NY2d 937 [1997]; also see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 683 [2007]). Based on the proof submitted by the plaintiff on this motion, the claims in this action were paid more than 30 days after they were mailed and received by the defendant. Therefore, the payments of the no-fault benefits made by the defendant were overdue (NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2011], citing St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 752 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]).

“An insurer’s failure to pay or deny a claim within 30 days carries substantial consequences. By statute, overdue payments earn monthly interest at a rate of two percent and entitle a claimant to reasonable{**40 Misc 3d at 351} attorneys’ fees incurred in securing payment of a valid claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a])” (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317-318 [2007]; Presbyterian Hosp. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d at 278).

Insurance Law § 5106 (a) provides as follows:

“Payments of first party benefits and additional first party benefits shall be made as the loss is incurred. Such benefits are overdue if not paid within thirty days after the claimant supplies proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained. If proof is not supplied as to the entire claim, the amount which is supported by proof is overdue if not paid within thirty days after such proof is supplied. All overdue payments shall bear interest at the rate of two percent per month. If a valid claim or portion was overdue, the claimant shall also be entitled to recover his attorney’s reasonable fee, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment of the overdue claim, subject to limitations promulgated by the superintendent in regulations.”

11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a), applicable to interest on overdue payments, provides as follows:

“All overdue mandatory and additional personal injury protection benefits due an applicant or assignee shall bear interest at a rate of two percent per month, calculated on a pro-rata basis using a 30-day month. When payment is made on an overdue claim, any interest calculated to be due in an amount exceeding $5 shall be paid to the applicant or the applicant’s assignee without demand therefor.”

11 NYCRR 65-3.10 (a), applicable to attorney fees, provides as follows:

“An applicant or an assignee shall be entitled to recover their attorney’s fees, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment, if a valid claim or portion thereof was denied or overdue. If such a claim was initially denied and subsequently paid by the insurer, the attorney’s fee shall be $80. If such a claim was overdue but not denied, the attorney’s fee shall be equal to 20 percent of the amount of the first-party benefits and any additional first-party benefits plus interest payable pursuant to section 65-3.9 of this Subpart, subject to a{**40 Misc 3d at 352} maximum fee of $60.”

The overdue interest on plaintiff’s claims for $71.49, $107.64, $103.95 was less than five dollars and was not paid by the defendant. The overdue interest on the claim for $1,392.52, which exceeded five dollars, was also not paid. Demands for payment of the overdue interest and attorney fees were mailed to the defendant shortly after the claim payments were received, as indicated in plaintiff’s opposing papers. This action to recover the overdue interest and attorney fees was then commenced by the filing of the summons and complaint on November 5, 2009 and personal service upon the defendant on November 10, 2009.^[FN*]

Defendant’s claim that overdue interest is to be calculated on a 30-day-month basis, and not on a daily basis, has no merit. The Court of Appeals in Presbyterian Hosp. v Maryland Cas. Co. (90 NY2d at 278) stated that

“[p]ursuant to both the Insurance Law and the regulations promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim (see, Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]). Failure to pay benefits within the 30-day requirement renders benefits ‘overdue,’ and all overdue payments bear interest at a rate of 2% per month (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h]). Additionally, a claimant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees where a ‘valid claim or portion’ was denied or overdue (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.15 [i]).”

This language makes it clear that overdue interest applies to “all overdue payments.” Moreover, the instruction in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a) that interest is to be “calculated on a pro-rata basis using a 30-day month” explains the manner of determining the daily rate of interest based on a monthly interest rate of two percent per month, rather than restricting collection to a monthly amount. The statute, [*3]regulations and case law confirm that overdue interest is a payment to be imposed on a daily basis, with attorney fees, when a claim for no-fault benefits is{**40 Misc 3d at 353} not paid within 30 days of submission of the claim (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d at 494; Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501 [1994]; Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 8 [2011]).

On this motion and cross motion, as well as other motions that are pending, the issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover overdue interest when it does not exceed the sum of five dollars indicated in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a). The defendant contends that the regulation limits overdue interest to an amount exceeding five dollars that is to be paid, without demand, upon payment of the overdue claim. The plaintiff claims that the regulation does not preclude the applicant from demanding overdue interest below five dollars. There are prior orders in Civil Court, Queens County, that have decided this issue in cases involving different parties. These orders, some of which are signed by this court, have held that collection of overdue interest of less than five dollars is not precluded by regulation 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a).

According to the Governor’s Memorandum approving the no-fault system, its primary aims “were to ensure prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence, to reduce the burden on the courts and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 [2003]). The Superintendent of Insurance was given the responsibility for administering the Insurance Law “with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” (Matter of Nicholas v Kahn, 47 NY2d 24, 31 [1979]). As a result, the Court of Appeals has long held that the Superintendent’s “interpretation, if not irrational or unreasonable, will be upheld in deference to his special competence and expertise with respect to the insurance industry, unless it runs counter to the clear wording of a statutory provision” (LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 [2009], citing Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]). However, “courts are not required to embrace a regulatory construction that conflicts with the plain meaning of the promulgated language” (Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. Home Care v New York State Dept. of Health, 5 NY3d 499, 506 [2005], citing 427 W. 51st St. Owners Corp. v Div. of Hous.{**40 Misc 3d at 354} & Community Renewal, 3 NY3d 337, 342 [2004]; also see Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 49 NY2d 451, 459 [1980]; East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 202, 209 [2009]). Legislative intent is the great and controlling principle in statutory construction and the proper judicial function is to discern and apply the will of the legislature (Mowczan v Bacon, 92 NY2d 281, 285 [1998]; Matter of Scotto v Dinkins, 85 NY2d 209, 214 [1995]; Matter of Sutka v Conners, 73 NY2d 395, 403 [1989]).

“The interest which accrues on overdue no-fault benefits at a rate of two percent per month is a statutory penalty designed to encourage prompt adjustments of claims and inflict a punitive economic sanction on those insurers who do not comply” (East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d at 210 [citations omitted]). The construction of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a), that is advocated by the defendant, would preclude overdue interest of less than five dollars. This would conflict with the statutory language of Insurance Law § 5106 (a) which imposes interest on “[a]ll overdue payments.” The change would also tend to increase the delay in compensating low cost medical benefits that accumulate minimal overdue interest. Such a construction of the statute [*4]conflicts with its primary aims and violates the legislative intent.

The legislature was entitled to enact a limitation on the overdue interest in Insurance Law § 5601 (a), as it did by expressly eliminating interest of “less then two dollars” in Insurance Law § 3224-a (c) (1). However, the legislature did not exempt the overdue interest of less than five dollars, that is sought by the defendant. The Superintendent of Insurance also did not preclude the collection of overdue interest that is less than five dollars, if it is demanded. This court will not now prevent the collection of such interest.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiff is awarded judgment, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a), for the overdue interest and attorney fees alleged in the complaint. The defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action is denied.

Footnotes

Footnote *: The defendant’s answer in this action was interposed by the office of Robert P. Tusa. However, Peter C. Merani, whose office submitted the cross motion and reply affidavit on this motion, is listed on the court records as the attorney for the defendant in this action. Therefore, it is appropriate for the court to consider these papers, despite plaintiff’s claim that Peter C. Merani is not the defendant’s attorney of record.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 10, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 10, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claim based on a chiropractor’s sworn peer review report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the chiropractor’s stated conclusion that the underlying MRI tests lacked medical necessity. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. The unsworn letter report submitted by plaintiff from the assignor’s treating chiropractor was without probative value (see CPLR 2106; Pierson v Edwards, 77 AD3d 642 [2010]), and, even if considered, the conclusory findings set forth therein were insufficient to withstand summary judgment (see CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: February 21, 2013

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered November 1, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 14, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 1, 2010 order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered November 2, 2010 as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated and defendant’s cross motion is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

We find that, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its [*2]motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]). However, plaintiff correctly argues that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. Defendant’s cross motion papers failed to establish that its time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claim had been tolled, as defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the letters scheduling the independent medical examination of plaintiff’s assignor had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered November 2, 2010 as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated and defendant’s cross motion is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 20, 2013

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 16, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, found that plaintiff had established its prima facie case.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 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 the motion and the cross motion, but found that plaintiff had established its prima facie case; that defendant had demonstrated that it had timely and properly denied plaintiff’s claim; and that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies provided to plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and as found that plaintiff had [*2]established its prima facie case.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, affidavits and peer review reports by its chiropractors which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the chiropractors’ determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. Defendant’s prima facie showing that the supplies were not medically necessary was unrebutted by plaintiff.

As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (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]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 19, 2013