September 19, 2016
AVM Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51354(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/avm-chiropractic-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op51354u/
- Decided
- September 19, 2016
- Citation
- 2016 NY Slip Op 51354(U) · 53 Misc 3d 129(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 AVM Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51354(U))
| AVM Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51354(U) [53 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on September 19, 2016 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 19, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2513 K C
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered July 15, 2013. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).Contrary to plaintiff’s only arguments on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]), and to demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50634[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 19, 2016
Legal questions (3)
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 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
Held the insurer's proof, contrary to the provider's only arguments, sufficient to presume that the denial of claim forms had been properly mailed.
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.
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 demonstrated that the assignor failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs, rejecting the provider's challenge.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (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)
Held the insurer's proof sufficient to presume proper mailing of the denial of claim forms on the EUO no-show ground, rejecting the provider's challenge.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50634(U)) FollowedAn out-of-state affidavit's lack of a certificate of conformity under CPLR 2309 (c) is not a fatal defect.
Similar decisions
- Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51656(U))The insurer's proof established proper mailing of EUO scheduling letters supporting its defense of the assignor's nonappearance.
- Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51668(U))The insurer's attorney established mailing of EUO notices and the assignor's nonappearance; transcripts concerning another assignor raised no issue.
- BCc Chiropractic, P.C. v Farmers New Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50680(U))The insurer established timely EUO notices, the assignor's nonappearance on both scheduled dates, and a timely denial on that ground.
- Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51325(U))The insurer established proper mailing of IME scheduling letters and denial forms, as well as the assignor's nonappearance.
- ACH Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50795(U))The insurer established timely mailing of the assignor's EUO scheduling letters through its standard office practices and procedures.