May 18, 2018
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50740(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/charles-deng-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50740u/
- Decided
- May 18, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 50740(U) · 59 Misc 3d 145(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (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 Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50740(U))
| Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 50740(U) [59 Misc 3d 145(A)] |
| Decided on May 18, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 18, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-75 K C
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Cheryl F. Korman and Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 26, 2015. 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 had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, defendant’s proof was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response. Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 18, 2018
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.
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's proof sufficient to establish prima facie that the provider failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs, and the provider raised no triable issue in response.
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.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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.
- Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092) FollowedThe assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
Similar decisions
- Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50738(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint for EUO nonappearance was granted.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v ELRAC, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50774(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the provider's claims for EUO nonappearance was affirmed on appeal.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51451(U))The insurer's affidavits failed to establish timely mailing, and the provider's affidavit failed to establish its prima facie case.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51655(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.