June 29, 2009
Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51386(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/careplus-med-supply-inc-v-travelers-indem-co-2009-ny-slip-op-51386u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- June 29, 2009
- Citation
- 2009 NY Slip Op 51386(U) · 24 Misc 3d 133(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
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 Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51386(U))
[*1]| Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 51386(U) [24 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on June 29, 2009 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
PRESENT:: MOLIA, J.P., SCHEINKMAN and LaCAVA, JJ
2008-1446 N C.
against
Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Gary F.
Knobel, J.), entered June 9, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied so much of
plaintiff’s motion as sought summary judgment upon its bill dated April 30, 2003.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant also cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the District Court denied so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought summary judgment on its bill dated April 30, 2003, on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).
Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment since the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s medical biller failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied, albeit on other grounds.
In light of the foregoing, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
The decision and order of this court entered herein on June 2, 2009 are hereby recalled and
vacated (see motion decided simultaneously herewith).
Molia, J.P., and LaCava, J., concur.
[*2]
Scheinkman, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: June 29, 2009
Legal questions
A question 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.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Insufficient: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not proved
Held the provider failed its prima facie showing because its medical biller's affidavit did not establish that the annexed documents were admissible under CPLR 4518, affirming the denial on that ground rather than the IME defense.
Of the 990 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 206 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846)The providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
- Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50243(U))An insurer's acknowledgment of claim receipt does not concede the admissibility of the claim forms or the facts they contain.
Similar decisions
- Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. (2009 NY Slip Op 51357(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied because its biller's affidavit did not establish the admissibility of the annexed documents.
- Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51398(U))The provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its billing manager's affidavit did not authenticate the supporting records.
- Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51132(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its affidavit did not establish admissibility of the supporting documents.
- A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51261(U))The providers failed to establish a prima facie case because their billing manager's affidavit did not establish admissible business records.
- A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51130(U))The providers' medical biller failed to establish admissibility of the supporting documents, defeating their motion for summary judgment.