May 6, 2013
Baybenson Chiropractic, LLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. (2013 NY Slip Op 50756(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Baybenson Chiropractic, LLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. (2013 NY Slip Op 50756(U))
| Baybenson Chiropractic, LLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 50756(U) [39 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on May 6, 2013 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-949 RI C.
against
Clarendon National Insurance, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond
County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), entered February 10, 2011. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendant’s moving papers established that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v 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]) based on a lack of medical necessity. In addition, defendant submitted a sworn peer review report and a sworn independent medical examination (IME) report, each of which set forth a factual basis and a medical rationale for the determination that there was no medical necessity for the chiropractic services at issue. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by a chiropractor which failed to meaningfully refer to or rebut the [*2]conclusions of either the peer reviewer or of the chiropractor who had performed the IME (see 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]). Therefore, defendant’s motion should have been granted (see 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]).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 06, 2013
Cited in this decision
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)
- Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U))
- A Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51342(U))
Similar decisions
- BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50882(U))
- Midtown Med. Assoc., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51351(U))
- Bay Plaza Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52315(U))
- Biobalance Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52378(U))
- BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51068(U))