June 1, 2018
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50837(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-geico-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50837u/
- Decided
- June 1, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 50837(U) · 59 Misc 3d 150(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50837(U))
| Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 50837(U) [59 Misc 3d 150(A)] |
| Decided on June 1, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 1, 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
2015-2804 Q C
against
GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Cheryl F. Korman, Henry Mascia and Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 20, 2015. 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 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross 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 contention, defendant’s proof was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, defendant also established plaintiff’s failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see e.g. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50406[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). [*2]Plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; T & J Chiropractic, P.C., 47 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50406[U]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018
Legal questions (3)
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.
Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice
Held the insurer's proof sufficient to raise a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim form were properly mailed, rejecting the provider's contention.
Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.
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 proved proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the provider's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs, rejecting the provider's contentions.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer's proof raised a presumption that its denial of claim form, like the EUO scheduling letters, was properly mailed, and rejected the provider's remaining contentions against the EUO no-show defense.
Of the 500 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 334 (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.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604)An insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50406(U))The provider's objections to the EUO requests were not heard because it did not claim to have responded to those requests.
- Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092)The assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
- Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51653(U))The provider failed to identify discovery that could raise a triable issue concerning the insurer's EUO nonappearance defense.
Similar decisions
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51653(U))The insurer's proof established presumptively timely mailing of EUO notices and the denial, as well as the provider's nonappearances.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51773(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for EUO requests to establish summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50770(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint based on EUO and IME nonappearances was granted.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51607(U))The insurer failed to establish timely denial mailing, and the provider failed to establish prima facie entitlement to payment.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51152(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissal for EUO nonappearance was affirmed after the provider's mailing challenges were rejected.