November 9, 2006

Commitment Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52117(U))

Headnote

The main issues in this case were whether the defendant was entitled to discovery pertaining to its defenses of lack of medical necessity and fraudulent billing, including the deposition of Dr. Arkady Levitan. The court considered the fact that the defendant timely denied the plaintiff's claims and that the plaintiff's assignor appeared for an independent medical examination (IME) performed by the defendant within the required 30 days. The court held that the defendant was entitled to discovery and granted the defendant's motion for discovery. Therefore, the order of the Civil Court, Bronx County, which denied the defendant's motion to compel discovery, was reversed, and the defendant's motion for discovery was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Commitment Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52117(U))

Commitment Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52117(U)) [*1]

Commitment Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 52117(U) [13 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on November 9, 2006

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 9, 2006

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570367/06.

Commitment Medical Care, P.C., a/a/o Erika Duchonovicova, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –
against
State Farm Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez J.), dated January 31, 2006, which denied its motion to compel discovery.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez J.), dated January 31, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for discovery granted.

In this action to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, defendant is entitled to discovery pertaining to its defenses of lack of medical necessity and fraudulent billing, including the deposition of Dr. Arkady Levitan. The record shows that defendant timely denied plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s assignor appeared for an IME performed by defendant on April 25, 2003, which was timely scheduled within 30 days from the date of defendant’s receipt of the claim (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d]), and in a letter addressed to defendant dated May 9, 2003, plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged receipt of defendant’s denial, which was dated May 6, 2003, thereby establishing a timely denial of claim within 30 days after the IME was performed (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a][1]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: November 9, 2006