May 15, 2012

Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50934(U))

Headnote

The court considered the denial of a motion for summary judgment and the granting of a cross motion for summary judgment by the Civil Court. The main issue in the case was whether the defendant had timely denied the claims for first-party no-fault benefits on the ground that the supplies at issue were not medically necessary, and whether the plaintiff had failed to rebut the defendant's evidence. The holding of the case was that the judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed, as defendant had established that it had timely denied the claims and plaintiff had failed to rebut the evidence. The court also decided that the defendant was not required to annex copies of the medical records reviewed by defendant's peer reviewer, and that the peer review report was admissible despite containing an electronic stamped facsimile of the peer reviewer's signature.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50934(U))

Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50934(U)) [*1]

Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50934(U) [35 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on May 15, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 15, 2012

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-58 K C.

Alfa Medical Supplies as Assignee of ANTONIO SANTOS, Appellant, —
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 3, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 15, 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 affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely denied the claims in question on the ground that the supplies at issue were not medically necessary, and that plaintiff had failed to rebut defendant’s evidence. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, defendant was not required to annex to its motion papers copies of the medical records which had been reviewed by defendant’s peer [*2]reviewer (see Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52222[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Furthermore, while plaintiff argues that the peer review report contained an electronic stamped facsimile of the peer reviewer’s signature and, as a result, the report was inadmissible, the record indicates that the facsimile signature was permissibly placed on the report by the chiropractor who had performed the peer review (see Quality Health Prods. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52299[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Eden Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50265[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

As plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal are similarly without merit, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 15, 2012