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 (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 29, 2010. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity.

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the affidavit submitted by defendant’s litigation examiner was sufficient to establish that defendant had timely denied the claims (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]). In addition, defendant submitted an affirmed independent medical examination report which set forth a factual basis and a medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. Defendant’s prima facie showing was not rebutted by plaintiff. As plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit, defendant was [*2]entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (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]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 27, 2012

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 (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered March 24, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for $1,712.58, $49.26 and $67.60.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for $1,712.58, $49.26 and $67.60 are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon claims for $1,712.58, $49.26 and $67.60.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affirmed independent medical examination (IME) report and an affirmed peer review report, each of which set forth a factual basis and a medical rationale for the respective doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affirmation from [*2]a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the IME report and the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment on the relevant claims, the order is reversed and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for $1,712.58, $49.26 and $67.60 are 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]).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 24, 2012

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 (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered March 10, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted only to the extent of awarding defendant summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $793.24 and $274.20 and the unpaid portions of plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $3,227.26 and $878.80; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit of defendant’s claims division employee established, with respect to plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $793.24 and $274.20 and the unpaid portions of plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $3,227.26 and $878.80, that defendant’s denial of claim forms had been timely [*2]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]). It is undisputed that defendant had made timely partial payments on the latter two claims. Moreover, defendant annexed to its cross motion papers an affirmed peer review report and an affirmed independent medical examination report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctors’ determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue in the above four claims. Defendant’s showing of lack of medical necessity was unrebutted by plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the above four claims were properly granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[A] [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]).

However, defendant failed to establish that it had timely denied two claims, each seeking to recover the sum of $838.95 (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Consequently, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon these claims.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted only to the extent of awarding defendant summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $793.24 and $274.20 and the unpaid portions of plaintiff’s claims in the sums of $3,227.26 and $878.80.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 24, 2012

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered December 24, 2009. The judgment, entered pursuant to an order of the same court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment which was subsequently entered dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant’s moving papers established that the denial of claim forms 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]). With respect to the claims which were denied based upon the workers’ compensation fee schedule, defendant demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff the amount to which plaintiff was entitled in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services rendered by a chiropractor (see Great Wall [*2]Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). With respect to the claims which were denied based upon an independent medical examination (IME) performed by defendant’s acupuncturist, the sworn IME report established a lack of medical necessity for the services, and the affidavit of plaintiff’s acupuncturist did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions of defendant’s acupuncturist (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 142[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50380[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). In light of the foregoing, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 24, 2012

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 (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered May 18, 2010. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of Crossland Medical Services, P.C. (Crossland), the entity which had scheduled the independent medical examinations (IMEs) involved herein on behalf of defendant. The affidavit established that Crossland had 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]) the IME scheduling letters. Defendant also submitted an affidavit by its examining chiropractor/acupuncturist, who stated that plaintiff’s [*2]assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner demonstrated that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16) the claims at issue based upon the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for the IMEs. As a result, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff only submitted an affirmation of counsel, which failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted (see Neomy Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52279[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

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

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 24, 2012