November 13, 2020
21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51364(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/21st-century-pharm-inc-v-integon-natl-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51364u/
- Decided
- November 13, 2020
- Citation
- 2020 NY Slip Op 51364(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 5 later decisions (see Cited by)
- Issues
- EUO no-show
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51364(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
Integon National Ins. Co., Appellant.
Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb and Selina Chin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered August 1, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). In an order entered August 1, 2018, the Civil Court denied the motion, but implicitly found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim form, as well as plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court further found that the only remaining issue for trial was the reasonableness of defendant’s EUO requests.
To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a complaint on the ground that a provider failed to appear for an EUO, an insurer must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it twice duly demanded an EUO from the provider, that the provider twice failed to appear, and that the insurer issued a timely denial of the claims (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014])—all elements that the Civil Court found to have been established pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g).
Plaintiff does not argue that defendant did not demonstrate its prima facie case. Rather, plaintiff argues that defendant’s EUO requests were unreasonable. However, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014]; 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 65 Misc 3d 134[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51629[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 13, 2020
Legal questions (2)
Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer entitled to summary judgment because mailing and nonappearance were established and the insurer need not set forth objective reasons for its EUO requests, rejecting the unreasonableness argument.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Applied the rule that a timely denial is an element of the insurer's EUO no-show defense and relied on the finding that the denial was timely and properly mailed in granting summary judgment.
Of the 500 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 334 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092) FollowedThe assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
- 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51629(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not give objective reasons for EUO requests to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- MSB Physical Therapy, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50750(U)) FollowedEUO requests sent before receipt of a claim do not toll the insurer's 30-day period to pay or deny it.
- Bridgeview Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs as part of its prima facie showing for summary judgment based on nonappearance.
- Sayyed DC, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50311(U)) FollowedThe insurer established its EUO nonappearance defense to six bills, but untimely denials barred that defense to two others.
- NY Wellness Med. P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50382(U)) FollowedThe insurer's delay notices referring only to the assignor's EUO failed to toll the payment period for three provider bills.
- Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50396(U)) FollowedThe provider's requests for lengthy EUO adjournments failed to raise a triable issue concerning the two nonappearances.
- New York Core Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50599(U))An EUO request sent after 15 business days but within 30 calendar days tolls the time to pay or deny, with a reduction for lateness.
Similar decisions
- NY Wellness Med., P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50359(U))An insurer need not set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- MUA Chiropractic Healthcare, PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51384(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for provider EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- Central Pharm., Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 51557(U))The provider's objection to the EUO location did not raise a factual issue because every scheduling letter offered virtual attendance.
- 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 51377(U))The insurer established timely mailing of IME scheduling letters and the assignor's failure to appear for the duly scheduled examinations.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51161(U))An insurer need not supply objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.