May 24, 2006

Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51336(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts of the case involved Amaze Medical Supply Inc. seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies provided to its assignor. The plaintiff, Amaze Medical Supply Inc., moved for summary judgment, but the court denied the motion, finding an issue of fact with regard to medical necessity. The main issue decided was whether defendant's affirmed peer review report, which referred to unaffirmed reports prepared by doctors who treated the plaintiff's assignor, was admissible as evidence. The holding of the case was that the affirmed medical reports prepared by the defendant's doctors, which referred to unaffirmed reports prepared by plaintiff’s doctor, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and were admissible in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. As a result, the court affirmed the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51336(U))

Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51336(U)) [*1]

Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 51336(U) [12 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on May 24, 2006

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 24, 2006

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2005-613 K C.

Amaze Medical Supply Inc., a/a/o Gregory King, Appellant,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered March 4, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies furnished to its assignor, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. After defendant opposed the motion, the court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding an issue of fact with regard to medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that defendant’s affirmed peer review report was inadmissible because it referred to unaffirmed reports prepared by doctors who treated plaintiff’s assignor.

In Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth. (16 AD3d 45, 51 [2005]), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that affirmed medical reports prepared by the defendants’ doctors which referred to an unaffirmed magnetic imaging report prepared by plaintiff’s doctor were sufficient to establish defendants’ prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Such affirmed reports are, therefore, likewise admissible in opposition to a motion for summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact, as they did in the instant case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 24, 2006