October 18, 2019
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gentlecare-ambulatory-anesthesia-servs-v-geico-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51684u/
- Decided
- October 18, 2019
- Citation
- 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U) · 65 Misc 3d 138(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
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. (2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U))
| Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U) [65 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on October 18, 2019 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 18, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-1930 K C
against
GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered June 6, 2017. 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 contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, as this court has repeatedly stated, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [*2][provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 137[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51161[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51518[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; 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]; 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]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019
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.
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
Applied the rule that the insurer must show a timely denial as an element of its EUO no-show defense and found the denial presumptively timely mailed.
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.
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
Rejected the provider's challenge and held the insurer's proof sufficient to raise a presumption that the denial of claim form was timely mailed.
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 showed the provider failed to appear for EUOs and need not state objective reasons for requesting them to make its prima facie case.
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.
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) 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.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51161(U))An insurer need not supply objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51518(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- 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.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Chi P & L Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51292(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- MSB Physical Therapy, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50750(U))EUO requests sent before receipt of a claim do not toll the insurer's 30-day period to pay or deny it.
- Parisien v Travelers Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50396(U))The provider's requests for lengthy EUO adjournments failed to raise a triable issue concerning the two nonappearances.
Similar decisions
- 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 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. 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.
- 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.