SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 8, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s second and third causes of action. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered November 5, 2008 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $708.37 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon plaintiff’s
second and third causes of action is vacated, the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon said causes of action are denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on plaintiff’s second and third causes of action. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment which was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant’s claims representative sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms, which denied plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that the supplies provided were medically unnecessary and that the fees charged by plaintiff were excessive (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]). In opposition to the branch of plaintiff’s [*2]motion for summary judgment upon plaintiff’s second cause of action, defendant raised a triable issue of fact by annexing an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s opinion that the medical supplies at issue in said cause of action were not medically necessary (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51412[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). In addition, in opposition to the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon plaintiff’s third cause of action, defendant established that there was an issue of fact as to whether the fees charged by plaintiff were excessive.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon plaintiff’s second and third causes of action is vacated, the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon said causes of action are denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.
Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 12, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), entered April 23, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered August 30, 2007 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $791.92 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, so much of the order entered April 23, 2007 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, 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 appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered April 23, 2007 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment that was subsequently entered pursuant to said portion of the order (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was supported by an affidavit of an employee of a third-party billing company who did not demonstrate that he possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s business practices and procedures to establish that the annexed documents were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518. As a result, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Psychology YM, P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51634[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co., 24 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 144[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51161[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007], affd 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the April 23, 2007 order as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated [*2]and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 12, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2008, after a nonjury trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2008, reversed, with $30 costs, complaint reinstated, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,072.08.

Civil Court erred in dismissing this action by plaintiff to recover first-party no-fault benefits at the close of the trial on the ground that plaintiff failed to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant. At no point in the action did defendant assert that plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of service and, therefore, defendant waived any objection on that ground (see generally Ballard v HSBC Bank USA, 6 NY3d 658 [2006]; Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155 [2006]). In any event, the failure to file an affidavit of service under the former commencement-by-service system that governed when this action was commenced (see former CCA 409) did not warrant dismissal of the action; rather, such failure was an irregularity that was correctable nunc pro tunc (see former CCA 411; see also Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Temco Serv. Indus., 209 AD2d 296 [1994]).

With respect to the merits of plaintiff’s action, as Civil Court properly recognized, plaintiff established a prima facie case to recover the first-party no-fault benefits it sought in its complaint. Since defendant failed to adduce any evidence on the issue of the medical necessity of the services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor, defendant’s only purported defense at trial, we direct judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the principal amount sought in the complaint.

We do not pass upon plaintiff’s request for statutory interest and attorneys’ fees, issues not reached below. Our disposition of this appeal is without prejudice to renewal of these issues in Civil Court.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 11, 2010

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

19752/07

Defendant:

Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina

GEICO Insurance Co.

170 Froehlich Farm Blvd

Woodbury NY 11797

(516) 496-5822

Plaintiff:

Joseph Sporacio, P.C., Attorney for Plaintiff

2555 Richmond Avenue

Staten Island, NY 10314

(718) 966-0055

Katherine A. Levine, J.

The primary issue presented at trial was whether plaintiff Healthcare Associates in Medicine (“plaintiff” or “Health Care”) violated the revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (“Endorsement”or “PIP”) contained in the revised No-Fault Regulations – 11 NYCRR 65 – 1.1 – by failing to submit its proof of claim for services to defendant Geico Insurance (“defendant” or “Geico”) within 45 days from the date services were rendered. Since the two aforementioned cases presented the same issue, they were consolidated for trial. [*2]

Defendant moved for a directed verdict after plaintiff presented the testimony of Ms. Sparta, its collection account representative. Defendant contended that Sparta failed to establish that either of the assignor’s bills were sent within 45 days since she admitted on cross that she did not know whether or when the bills were actually sent out. She did not generate the bill and did not see the representative responsible for billing GEICO either generate the bills or mail them or give them to the postal clerk. Rather, it is her responsibility to supervise the assigned representatives, including “Mary Ann” who was responsible for GEICO billing. Mary Ann was supposed to take the information from the patient and generate a bill after the patient was seen and send out the bill was supposed to generate a visit for the day, attach it to the bill and send it out. She “hopes and assumes” that Maryann took the bill and put it into the mail room.

Due to the computer program utilized by plaintiff, she cannot print out a hard copy of the bill for the first date of service of a particular assignor since each time a new bill is generated the computer overrides the original bill that was created. Therefore the dates on the claim forms submitted by plaintiff (plaintiff’s “1” and “3”) are not the dates for the first bills that were generated for the assignors but rather the dates for the last bills that were generated. There is no proof of mailing for the bills containing the original dates of service and nothing on the bills that would show that they were mailed. However, the computer also prints out a claims history report ( plaintiff’s “2” and “4”) which chronologically lists from the bottom upwards the dates that the bills were generated. Sparta claims that based upon the claims history forms, the bill for the first date of service on Varallo- April 7, 2006 – was generated on April 12, 2006 and that the girls should have mailed the bill out that day. With respect to assignor Galanti, the bill for the first date of service on May 16, 2006 was generated was May 17, 2006.

Due to the alleged deficiency in Sparta’s testimony as well as deficiencies in the documentary evidence, GEICO contends that it is not necessary for it to present its own witness to establish its receipt of the bills or its generation of timely denials. Despite this contention, Geico asserts in its brief that it received the bill for the date of service of April 7, 2006 (Varallo) on June 26, 2006 and timely denied the bill on June June 29, 2006. Geico also asserts that it received the bill for the date of service of May 16, 2006 (Galanti) on July 7, 2006 and timely denied it on July 20, 2006. However, these are merely assertions; Geico did not place its denials in evidence.

Curiously, Geico does not dispute that plaintiff’s witness “adequately testified that she had personal knowledge of the mailing procedures sufficient to raise a presumption that the bill(s) were mailed to Defendant.” Therefore defendant does not dispute that but for the 45 day issue, plaintiff would have proven its prima facie case. Rather defendant challenges plaintiff’s ability, on its prima facie case, to submit both testimony and evidentiary documentation to establish that the bills were mailed within the mandatory statutory time period of 45 days. In essence Geico contends that it would be redundant and a waste of time for it to have to place its claims examiner on the stand to establish that the bill was mailed and received beyond the 45 [*3]days since plaintiff would not be able, based upon Sparta’s testimony in plaintiff’s case, to rebut its testimony and documentary evidence.

Pursuant to the revised insurance regulation, all automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002, are required to include a revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (“Endorsement”) which reduces the time within which claims are to be submitted from 180 days (11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12 [e] (“old regulations)) to 45 days (11 N.Y.C.R.R. § 65-1.1 [b] (“new regulations.”)). See, Mtr. Of Medical Society of the State of NY v. Serio, 298 AD2d 255 (1st Dept. 2002); Eagle Chiropractic P.C., v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129A, 859 NYS2d 902 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130(A), 791 NYS2d 873 (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004). Where one proof of claim is submitted for several medical treatments, the 45 day period commences the day after the first treatment is rendered. SZ Medical P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 52, 55 (App. Term., 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006), citing Informal Opinion, New York State Insurance Department, June 30, 2003.

Insurance Law § 3425 (a) (8) sets forth that the policy period for newly issued and renewed automobile insurance policies is one year. See also Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 NY2d 475 (2001). The latest date of expiration for an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would be April 2003. S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra . When an automobile policy is issued after that date, the defendant insurer need not prove that the policy at issued contained such an endorsement, “(s)ince an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would have expired no later than in April 2003 (see Insurance Law § 3425 [a][8]), the automobile insurance policy applicable to the claims at issue in the instant case was required to contain the current Endorsement which sets forth the 45-day time limit for the submission of claims (Insurance Department Regulations [11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65-1.1 [b]”. Eagle Chiropractic, supra . See also, Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C. v. Regina Alsis, 2009 NY Slip Op. 51966U, 2009 NY Misc. LEXIS 2471 (Civil Ct., Bronx Co. 2009).

Although a health care provider is required to submit its proof of claim within 45 days after the services were rendered, an insurer is precluded from asserting the defense of a provider’s untimely submission of claim if it does not issue a timely denial of claim. Rockman v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., supra , citing Mid Atlantic Medical P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 12 Misc 3d 147(A), 824 NYS2d 769 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2006). Pursuant 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. Presbyterian Hosp. v. Md. Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 (1997), citing Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]). See, Bayside Rehab & Physical Therapy P.C. v. GEICO, 24 Misc 3d 542 (Civil Ct., Richmond CO. 2009). [*4]

Thus, in Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 354 ( 2d Dept. 2004), the court found that despite the fact that the medical service provider had submitted a proof of claim that was incomplete and untimely, the plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that their claims were neither denied nor paid within the requisite time period NYCRR 651.1(d) ( new regulation). St. Clare’s Hosp. v. Allcity Ins. Co., 201 AD2d 718 (2d Dept. 1994).However, since the defendant offered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether as to whether the plaintiff’s claim was denied as untimely, summary judgment should not have been granted to the plaintiff. See also, Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. MVAIC, 2007 NY Slip Op 52143U, 17 Misc 3d 1125A (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2007) (parties stipulated at outset of trial that plaintiff’s bills were submitted beyond 45 days after services were rendered, the defendant submitted a timely denial, and the plaintiff’s prima facie case was established).

GEICO submits that it need not present a witness to establish that it timely denied the bills because plaintiff failed, in its prima facie case, to establish that it mailed the bills within the statutory 45 day period and failed to present any testimony as whether it had a reasonable justification for the delay in mailing the bills. However, since GEICO concedes that plaintiff made out its prima facie case of generating and then mailing a bill, GEICO cannot then attack the validity of the very bills it concedes were properly mailed and generated by arguing that they do not contain proof that they were mailed within 45 days. The fact that a plaintiff’s bill may ultimately be deemed to be untimely does not create an obligation upon the plaintiff, in the first instance, to prove timeliness as part of its prima facie. Rather, precedent requires that an insurance company establish the untimeliness of the bills by putting in its timely denials which contain the dates that the bills were received. GEICO may be able to prevail if the documents it puts into evidence substantiate its assertions, in its brief, that it received both claims beyond the 45 day manage.

As such, defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for the dismissal of the case is denied. The parties shall contact the court within 20 days of receipt of this decision to set a trial date if they cannot resolve these two cases based upon the afore stated decision. A trial shall be held to give GEICO an opportunity to present its defense.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: January 6, 2010______________________________

Hon. Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by _______on___________ [*5]

A P P E A R A N C E S

District Court of Nassau County, First District

30566/05

Plaintiff – Friedman, Harfenist, Langer & Kraut

Defendant – DeSena & Sweeney

Fred J. Hirsh, J.

This action appears to be a simple claim to recover first party no-fault benefits for a cervical MRI and lumbar MRI performed by Elmont Open MRI on Almarto Wiggins (“Wiggins”) on March 24, 2005. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) denied payment for these MRIs on the grounds they were not medically necessary based upon the peer review report of Edward M. Weiland, M.D. (“Dr. Weiland”). Dr. Weiland’s letterhead and curriculum vitae indicates that he is a board certified neurologist.

The denial raises the issue of who is a proper expert to issue a peer review report and to testify regarding whether treatment or tests are medically necessity.

Wiggins was injured in an automobile accident that occurred on February 9, 2005. State Farm was the insurance carrier that provided no-fault benefits to Wiggins.

On February 16, 2005, Wiggins was examined by a neurologist, A. Etamadi, M.D. The neurological exam was essentially normal. Dr. Etamadi diagnoses relevant to this action are a cervical spine sprain/strain and a lumbar spine sprain/strain. Dr. [*2]Etamadi recommended a follow up visit in four weeks and an orthopedic consultation.^[FN1]

Wiggins also came under the care of a chiropractor, Mark Heyligers, D.C

(“Dr. Heyligers”) on February 15, 2005. A sheet a heading “Initial Report” prepared by Dr. Heyligers is dated 3/22/04. The face page of the “Initial Report” makes reference to objective findings and x-ray analysis contained in an attachment thereto. The x-ray analysis (Roentgenological Report) is attached to the copy of the Initial Report in evidence. The objective findings are not.

Prior to March 24, 2005, Dr. Heyligers recommended Wiggins have a cervical and lumbar MRIs. The exact date these MRIs were ordered is not contained in the records introduced into evidence. The referral sheet for the MRIs incorrectly places Wiggins date of birth on the line for the referral date. The referral sheet does not state the reason the MRIs were ordered. However, the referral sheet states the referring doctor is Dr. Heyligers. The MRIs were performed by plaintiff on March 24, 2005. The reports of the reading of the MRIs were sent to Dr. Heyligers.

Wiggins received chiropractic care and treatment from Dr. Heyligers from February 15, 2005 to at least May 25, 2005. This clear because Dr. Heyligers issued a letter of medical necessity regarding the cervical and lumbar MRIs dated May 25, 2005. None of the records relating to the treatment Wiggins received from Dr. Heyligers other than the Initial Report and the x-ray analysis were reviewed by Dr. Weiland or placed in evidence at trial.

Dr. Heyligers May 25, 2005 letter diagnoses Wiggins as having a cervical sprain/strain, lumbar sprain/strain, brachial radiculitis and neuritis of sciatic nerve. Dr. Heyligers recommended physical therapy and chiropractic care three times a week. Dr. Heyligers states the diagnostic testing was recommended to permit him to provide Wiggins with proper treatment.

Dr. Weiland did not testify at trial. State Farm had Marlon Seliger, M.D. (“Dr. Seliger”) prepare a re-peer report. Dr. Seliger is a medical doctor whose field of expertise is neurology. State Farm called Dr. Seliger testified on the issue of medical necessity.

The parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case. The parties also stipulated to the timely denial of the claim on the grounds of lack of medical necessity. The parties stipulated into evidence the peer review reports of Dr. Weiland and Dr. Seliger, the medical reports and records reviewed by the doctors in preparing their peer review reports and the other information and documentation reviewed by the peer review doctors.

Dr. Seliger concurred with Dr. Weiland’s determination the cervical and lumbar MRIs were not medically necessary. Dr. Seliger testified the medical records he reviewed indicated an essentially normal neurological examination of the cervical and [*3]lumbar spine. The neurologist who examined Wiggins a week after the automobile accident diagnosed Wiggins as having a cervical sprain/strain and a lumbar sprain/strain as a result of the automobile accident. The only diagnoses Dr. Seliger found in the Initial Report of Dr. Heyligers was a mild cervical and lumbar myospasm.

Dr. Seliger further testified since the doctors providing treatment to Wiggins had reached a diagnosis and had developed a treatment plan without performing the MRIs the MRIs were not medically necessary. Cervical and lumbar MRIs are not medically necessary under these circumstances unless the results of the MRIs would influence treatment.

Dr Weiland’s peer review report and State Farm’s denials predate Dr. Heyligers’s letter of medical necessity. Therefore, this letter was also not considered by State Farm in issuing its denials.

Dr. Seliger did not review Dr. Heyligers’s letter of medical necessity in preparing his re-peer report. He reviewed only those records and reports that Dr. Weiland had reviewed.

Dr. Heyligers’s letter of medical necessity was introduced into evidence at trial. Dr. Seliger reviewed the letter of medical necessity and testified it did not change his opinion that the MRIs were not medically necessary.

DISCUSSION

A presumption of medical necessity attaches to a timely submitted no fault claim.

All County Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology. P.C. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 131(a) (App.Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2006). Since the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case, the cervical and lumbar MRIs were presumptively medically necessary.

The burden then shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption of medical necessity. A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 50 (App.Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists. 2005); and A Plus Medical, P.C. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 799 (Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2008).

In order to meet this burden, the defendant must establish the treatment or tests in question were not in accordance with generally accepted medical/professional practice. Delta Medical Supplies, Inc. v. NY Central Mutual Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 1231(A) (Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2007); and CityWide Social Work & Psychological Servs. V. Travelers Indem. Co., 3 Misc 3d 608 (Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2004).

The defendant must prove there is a factual basis and medical rationale for the opinion of the peer review doctor the services rendered or tests performed by plaintiff were not medically necessary.. Prime Psychological Services, Progressive As. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 1244(A) (Civil Ct. Richmond Co. 2009); and Nir v. Allstate Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 544 (Civil Ct. Kings Co 2005).

Expert testimony is required to establish what the generally accepted medical/professional practices are and how ordering the tests or treatment departed from generally accepted medical/professional standards. Dunn v. Khan, 62 AD3d 828 (2nd Dept. 2009); and Lyons v. McCauley, 252 AD2d 516 (2nd Dept. 1998).

Chiropractics is separate and distinct from the practice of medicine so that a physician’s standard is not controlling upon a chiropractor in the practice of his or her profession. Taormina v. Goodman, 83 AD2d 1018 (2nd Dept. 1978). In determining [*4]whether treatment performed or tests ordered by a chiropractor are medically necessary, the court must determine the generally accepted standard of care in the field of chiropractics and whether the providing the treatment or ordering of the tests was in accordance with those generally accepted chiropractic standards. 1B NY PJI3d 2:150, at 802 (2009).

To qualify as an expert, the witness must possess “…the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experienced from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable (citations omitted).” Matott v. Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 460 (1979); and de Hernandez v. Lutheran Medical Center, 46 AD3d 517 (2nd Dept. 2007). When a doctor testifies outside his area of expertise, the party calling the doctor must lay a foundation establishing the doctor is familiar with the generally accepted practice in the area in question to lay a proper a foundation for the expert’s opinion. Shectman v. Wilson, -A.D.3d-, 2009 WL 4674047 (2nd Dept. 2009); and Geffner v. North Shore University Hosp., 57 AD3d 838 (2nd Dept. 2009).

State Farm had a neurologist perform the peer review and called a neurologist to testify the cervical and lumbar MRIs ordered by a chiropractor were not medically necessary. Even though the parties stipulated Dr. Seliger was an expert, his field of expertise is neurology not chiropractics. State Farm did not establish Dr. Weiland, the peer reviewer, or Dr. Seliger, the re-peer, were familiar with generally accepted chiropractic practices or the generally accepted reasons why a chiropractor would order a patient to have a cervical or lumbar MRI.^[FN2] Therefore, Dr. Weiland’s peer review report and Dr. Seliger’s testimony are insufficient to rebut the presumption of medical necessity that attaches to a timely filed no-fault claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds for the plaintiff.

The clerk is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $1791.73 together with interest and legal fees in accordance with the No-Fault Law and Regulations and costs and disbursements as taxed by the clerk.

Submit judgment.

SO ORDERED:

Hon. Fred J. Hirsh

District Court Judge

Dated: January 6, 2010

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Wiggins did see an orthopedist on March 7, 2005 on recommendation of Dr. Heyligers. The orthopedic consult was for injuries to Wiggins right knee. The orthopedic consult report makes no mention of the orthopedist having examined Wiggins cervical or lumbar spine or recommending any care, treatment or tests for the cervical or lumbar spine.

Footnote 2:Dr. Seliger would have been qualified to testify the MRIs were not medically necessary had the tests been ordered by a neurologist. However, the record reflects Wiggins was examined once by a neurologist who did not order or recommend either MRI.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

97213/2007

Plaintiff’s Counsel:

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt

155 Kings Highway, 3rd Floor

Brooklyn NY 11223

Tel.: (718)336-8076

Defendant’s Counsel

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP

445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 220

Melville, NY 11747

Tel.: (631) 390-0011

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, both the plaintiff and defendant move for summary judgment.

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proving the submission of statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2004]). The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] ).

In opposition to the motion and in support of its cross-motion, defendant demonstrated that after receiving the claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, it timely requested additional verification of the claims by sending a letter to plaintiff’s assignor on August 21, 2006, directing her to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) on a September 6, 2006. When she failed to appear for the examination, defendant sent her a second letter on September 7th, rescheduling the examination for September 20, 2006. Defendant’s submissions sufficiently demonstrated that the scheduling letters were mailed to plaintiff’s assignor on the above dates and [*2]that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the examinations.

It is well settled that an insurer is required to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days after the claimant provides proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]) and that its failure to do so will preclude it from raising most defenses to the claim (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY, supra, 90 NY2d at 282). An insurer may extend the 30 day period in which it has to pay or deny a claim by making a request for additional verification of the claim “within 15 business days of receipt [of one] of the prescribed verification forms” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b]; see also Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 27 AD3d 96 [2nd Dept 2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2nd Dept 2002]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 699, 700 [2nd Dept 2001]). If the verification is not provided 30 calendar days after the original request, “[a]t a minimum … the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call, properly documented in the file, or by mail” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]). An insurer does not have to pay or deny a claim until it has received verification of all of the relevant information requested (see e.g. Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Gov’t Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 673, 674 [2d Dept 2006]).

At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel maintained, inter alia, that since defendant did not strictly comply with the time limitations set forth in 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], it lost the toll of the 30-day rule to pay or deny the claim. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that the second IME letter was mailed only 17 days after the first. She maintained that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], defendant was required to wait a full 30 days after the initial mailing of the IME request before mailing out the second request. The Court finds plaintiff’s argument to be unavailing.

In Infinity Health Products, Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 [2d Dept ]), the Court recently held that it “[i]t would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, which ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant, slightly prematurely, sent its second verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent” (2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2 [citations omitted]) The Court reasoned that “it would be incongruous to conclude that the insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer’s requests…. and [that] [s]uch a result is not contemplated by the no-fault law’ or its regulations, which should be interpreted to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Id.).

The Court held that “inasmuch as the plaintiff did not respond to either of the verification requests, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not commence to run . . . and that . . . plaintiff’s action [was therefore] premature” (Id.). The [*3]Court further held that “plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted . . .without prejudice to commencement of a new action” (Id. [citations omitted]).

In this Court’s view, the holding in Infinity Health Products, Ltd. requires dismissal of the within action, without prejudice to its recommencement. Here, as in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., it would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, whose assignor ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant did not strictly adhere to the time frames set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] for mailing out second requests for additional verification of a claim . It would be incongruous to conclude that 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] mandates a result that would penalize the defendant for its diligent attempts to obtain additional verification of the claims and reward plaintiff whose assignor ignored the requests.

This court recognizes that this case is not on all fours with Infinity Health Products, Ltd.. In Infinity Health Products, Ltd., the defendant sent its second written verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent. Here, the second written verification request was sent out 13 days before the expiration of the 30 day period referred to in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however, this distinction does not warrant a contrary result.

When plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME on September 6, 2009, the re-scheduling letter was mailed to her on the following day. Unlike in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., once plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME, there is no legitimate reason why defendant should have waited a full 30 days from the mailing of the first letter to mail out the re-scheduling letter. Indeed, had defendant waited a full 30 days, it would have had acted in contravention of one of the primary policies underlying the “no-fault law”; which is “to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Infinity Health Products, Ltd., supra, 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2). Further, the Court notes that when plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the re-scheduled IME, 30 days had elapsed from the time that the first scheduling letter had been sent to her.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary Judgment is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to the commencement of a new action.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

[*4]Dated: January 6, 2010__________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.

Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael P. Kandler and Eric L. Shoikhetman of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical benefits under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered March 6, 2009, as granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment of the same court entered September 4, 2008, which, upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint, was in its favor and against the defendant in the principal sum of $19,325.61 and, in effect, denied, as academic, its motion to hold the defendant in contempt.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the defendant’s motion to vacate the clerk’s judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing and answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering, as well as the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2008]). The Special Deputy Superintendent of the State of New York Insurance Department acknowledged service upon him of the summons and complaint in this matter and notified the defendant, through Debra Sutton at its Pennsylvania office, of service as effected above (see Insurance Law § 1212; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 958, 959 [2008]). In response, the defendant failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely appear or answer the complaint and the existence of a meritorious defense. The affidavit of a senior claims examiner employed in the defendant’s Texas office averred that there was no record of the summons and complaint in the defendant’s computer system, but failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the office procedures employed in the handling of a summons and complaint received at the defendant’s Pennsylvania office. Thus, that affidavit was insufficient to show that the failure to timely appear and answer was due to a clerical error which caused the summons and complaint to be overlooked (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co., [*2]57 AD3d at 959; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 968 [2006]; Kaperonis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 254 AD2d 334 [1998]; cf. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]).

Furthermore, the defendant failed to set forth facts from an individual with personal knowledge sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s biller showed that the forms N-F5 and UB-92 relating to this matter were mailed on April 23, 2008, and signed for by the defendant on April 28, 2008. At that time, according to the defendant’s own records, there were still sufficient funds remaining under the policy to pay this bill (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15; Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 [2007]). In response, the defendant offered only the same aforementioned affidavit, which also averred that there was no record of the bill in question in the defendant’s computer system. This was insufficient for a similar reason; that is, the affiant failed to show any knowledge of the office procedures employed in the handling of billing forms received at the defendant’s Pennsylvania office (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 517 [2008]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d at 968; see generally New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 16 AD3d 391, 392 [2005]; Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 190 [1997]; cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer should have been denied.

The Supreme Court, in effect, denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt. In light of our determination, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered December 9, 2008. The order, upon a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stayed the action pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

ORDERED that the order is modified by adding thereto a provision that in the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the Civil Court of an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board within 90 days of the date of the order entered hereon, the Civil Court shall grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint unless plaintiff shows good cause why the complaint should not be dismissed; as so modified, the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court, upon a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stayed the action pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The sole issue raised by plaintiff on appeal is whether defendant proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s assignor was injured while acting within the course of his employment.

The application for no-fault benefits form, which was signed by plaintiff’s assignor under penalty of perjury, states that the assignor was in the course of his employment when he was injured, an admission that is “sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the assignor was acting as an employee at the time of the accident. . ., which issue must be resolved in the first [*2]instance by the [Workers’ Compensation] Board” (A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 75, 76-77 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009] [citation omitted]; see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219, 225 [1976]; Santigate v Linsalata, 304 AD2d 639, 640 [2003]; see also Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v New York City Tr. Auth., 21 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52218[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Response Equip., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 145[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51176[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit.

In addition to staying the action pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Civil Court’s order should have provided that in the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the Civil Court of an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board within 90 days, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted unless plaintiff shows good cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. We modify the order accordingly.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 30, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), entered September 22, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, sua sponte, stayed the action with respect to plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC without determining the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, stayed the action with respect to plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC is treated as an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the
order, and leave to appeal from that portion of the order is granted (see UDCA 1702); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs, the provision thereof which stayed the action is stricken, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to their assignor in 2002, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for relief pursuant to CPLR 3124 and CPLR 3126. Plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from the order of the District Court insofar as it, without determining the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of plaintiff A.B. Medical Services, PLLC (A.B. Med.), sua sponte, stayed the action as to A.B. Med, so that said plaintiff “can make application to the appropriate court for the appointment of a receiver or liquidating trustee.”

We note that no appeal lies as of right from a sua sponte order staying an action (see UDCA 1702 [a] [2]). However, we deem the notice of appeal to be an application
for leave to appeal and, for the reasons stated in A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC a/a/o
Beauliere v Travelers Ins. Co. ( Misc 3d , 2009 NY Slip Op 29510 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]), leave to appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, stayed the action with respect to A.B. Med. is granted, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, said provision is stricken, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of A.B. Med.

In remitting the matter for determination of the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of A.B. Med., we note that the court similarly did not pass upon the merits of the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by A.B. Med.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered September 30, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered November 5, 2008 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,693.12 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further
proceedings.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment which was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]). On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant’s claims representative sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms, which denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the services rendered were medically unnecessary (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic [*2]Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Also annexed to the motion papers were affirmed peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewers’ opinions that the medical services provided were not medically necessary (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51412[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As a result, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied due to the existence of an issue of fact as to medical necessity.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2009