December 21, 2012

Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52405(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alfa-med-supplies-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op52405u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 21, 2012
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 52405(U) · 38 Misc 3d 130(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 130(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 52405(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012)

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.

The insurer's unrebutted peer review supported dismissal of the supply claims except the thermophore claim, which it conceded was payable. The provider appealed denial of its summary judgment motion and dismissal of its complaint on the insurer's cross motion. The affirmed peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the other supplies unnecessary but found the thermophore medically necessary. The provider submitted no doctor's affirmation rebutting the report and raised no triable issue concerning the other supplies. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to grant the provider summary judgment on the thermophore claim and deny the insurer's cross motion as to that claim, while affirming dismissal of the remaining claims.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alfa Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52405(U))

[*1]

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

2012 NY Slip Op 52405(U) [38 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on December 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

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

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2010-2835 K C.

Alfa Medical Supplies as Assignee of JULIO C. DIAZ, Appellant, —
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 24, 2010. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a $70 claim for a thermophore is granted and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon that claim is denied; 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 from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v [*2]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 claim at issue on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Moreover, defendant annexed to its motion papers an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided, with the exception of a thermophore, which the peer reviewer found to be medically necessary (see e.g. 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]; 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]). On appeal, defendant concedes that plaintiff is entitled to recover upon so much of plaintiff’s complaint as sought $70 for the thermophore.

In opposition to defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, since it did not submit an affirmation from a doctor rebutting the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; 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]). Thus, the Civil Court properly granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the $70 claim for a thermophore is granted and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon that claim is denied.

Rios, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2012

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.

Lack of medical necessity

Open the full map

Did the insurer’s proof establish lack of medical necessity, and did the provider’s evidence rebut it?

This decision: Insurer's proof established lack of medical necessity and the provider failed to rebut it

Held the affirmed peer review set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for lack of necessity of the supplies (except a conceded thermophore), and the provider submitted no doctor's affirmation rebutting it.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 315 (this one included) are in the same category.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the insurer's affidavit established that it timely denied the claim for lack of medical necessity, so the denial was proved mailed in time.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U))The insurer's examining physician supplied an unrebutted factual basis and medical rationale that the billed MRI was unnecessary.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52455(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.
A Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51342(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.
Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52321(U))The insurer established timely denials and lack of medical necessity, and the provider's chiropractor failed to rebut the insurer's showing.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U))The provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.

Cited by

Nova Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50914(U))The insurer proved lack of medical necessity for two claims but failed to establish its fee schedule defense for the remaining claims.

Similar decisions

Alfa Med. Supplies v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51733(U))The insurer established full payment of one claim and an unrebutted medical necessity defense to the remaining claim.
Alfa Med. Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51332(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer reviews defeated the provider's summary judgment motion on the three medical-supply claims under review.
Alfa Med. Supplies v Eveready Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52282(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review report established that the medical supplies lacked medical necessity.
Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50438(U))The insurer established a medical necessity defense, but the provider's doctor's affirmation raised a triable issue.
Alfa Med. Supplies v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51890(U))The insurer raised a medical-necessity issue on one claim but failed to establish timely denial of the other assignor's claim.