July 14, 2017

Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50917(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50917u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 14, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 50917(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: Verification requests Timeliness and preclusion
Legal questions: Proof of mailing · Outstanding verification and premature actions (see the maps)

Cite as

Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50917(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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.

The provider's mailing affidavit raised a factual issue over receipt of verification, defeating the insurer's premature-action defense on summary judgment. The insurer established timely mailing of its initial and follow-up requests and made a prima facie showing that the requested verification had not been received. However, the provider's owner's affidavit created a presumption that the verification had been mailed and received under St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. A triable issue therefore remained as to whether the action was premature. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to deny the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment; denial of the provider's motion remained in place.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50917(U))

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Exume, Maria, Appellant,
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered April 9, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit by plaintiff’s owner, submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123). In view of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 14, 2017

Legal questions (2)

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.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The mailing proof (of either party) left only a triable issue of fact on whether or when the item was mailed or received

Held the insurer proved timely mailing of its verification requests, but the provider owner's affidavit raised a presumption that the verification was mailed and received, leaving a factual issue.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 99 (this one included) are in the same category.

Outstanding verification and premature actions

Open the full map

Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?

This decision: Fact issues remain on whether the verification defense applies

Held that although the insurer showed timely requests and non-receipt, the provider's affidavit presuming mailing of the verification raised a triable issue whether the action was premature.

Premature: verification outstandingNonresponse denial upheldTriable issueInsurer's showing failsProvider compliedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 374 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 114 (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.
Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 09484) FollowedAn insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51776(U)) FollowedThe provider raised a factual issue on verification, but the insurer proved IME nonappearance warranting dismissal of the remaining claims.

Similar decisions

Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51000(U))The insurer failed to establish its fraudulent-procurement defense, and the provider raised a factual issue about outstanding verification.
Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U))The insurer established proper mailing of verification requests and denials and timely denial after receipt of verification.
Medex Health Supply, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51261(U))The provider's mailing affidavit raised a factual issue over verification receipt despite the insurer's prima facie showing of prematurity.
Compas Med., P.C. v Farmington Cas. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50925(U))The insurer established outstanding verification for one claim and timely mailing of IME nonappearance denials for the remaining claims.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51251(U))The provider's affidavit raised a triable issue as to verification receipt and defeated the insurer's prematurity motion.