March 10, 2010

Advanced Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50454(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts in this case included a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. The main issue decided in the case was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's third and fifth causes of action. The court held that the defendant's submission of denial of claim forms and an affirmation by the doctor who performed the independent medical examination established that there was no medical necessity for the services at issue in plaintiff's third and fifth causes of action, and therefore the defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing said causes of action should have been granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Advanced Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50454(U))

Advanced Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50454(U)) [*1]
Advanced Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 50454(U) [26 Misc 3d 145(A)]
Decided on March 10, 2010
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on March 10, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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


PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-661 Q C.
Advanced Medical, P.C. a/a/o Joyce Asiedu, Respondent,

against

GEICO Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered February 10, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third and fifth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third and fifth causes of action are 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, arguing, among other things, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue in plaintiff’s third and fifth causes of action, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the claim at issue in plaintiff’s first cause of action based on the Worker’s Compensation Fee Schedule. Defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of the order as denied the branches of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third and fifth causes of action.

The affidavit submitted by defendant sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practice or procedure (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]). Furthermore, defendant submitted an affirmation by the doctor who performed the independent medical examination as well as a copy of the independent medical examination report. Said [*2]documents established, prima facie, that with respect to the services at issue in plaintiff’s third and fifth causes of action, there was no medical necessity (see A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), which evidence was unrebutted. Accordingly, the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing said causes of action should have been granted.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2010