April 25, 2012

Complete Radiology, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50752(U))

Headnote

The court considered a motion for summary judgment and cross motion for summary judgment in a case involving a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant's peer review reports were found to have a factual basis and medical rationale for determining a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered to plaintiff's assignors. Plaintiff's remaining contentions were found to lack merit. The main issue decided was whether the peer review reports provided a factual basis and medical rationale for determining the lack of medical necessity. The holding of the case was that the judgment denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Complete Radiology, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50752(U))

Complete Radiology, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50752(U)) [*1]

Complete Radiology, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50752(U) [35 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on April 25, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 25, 2012

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
.

Complete Radiology, P.C. as Assignee of NATHANIEL HUNT and JULIA MORRISON-HUNT, Appellant, —
against
Geico Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered May 17, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered June 14, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the May 17, 2010 order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $10 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 its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affirmed peer review reports annexed to defendant’s cross motion each set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctors’ determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered to plaintiff’s assignors. As plaintiff’s remaining contentions either lack merit or are academic, the judgment is affirmed (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; 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]).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 25, 2012