December 7, 2009

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/georgetown-mind-body-med-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2009-ny-slipop-52464u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 7, 2009
Citation: 2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U) · 25 Misc 3d 142(A)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 142(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009)

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.

Severance of no-fault claims may rest solely on allegations in the answer without a showing of prejudice. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order and granted the insurer's motion under CPLR 603 to sever claims assigned by two individuals into separate actions. The claims allegedly arose from separate accidents, and the answer disputed the necessity and reasonableness of the particular services rendered to each assignor. The facts were therefore likely to present few, if any, common factual issues under Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. Following Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., the insurer did not need to demonstrate prejudice to obtain severance.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))

[*1]

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U) [25 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on December 7, 2009

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 7, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and GOLIA, JJ
2008-1654 K C.

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. a/a/o NICOLE APESA and STEVEN DeSANE, Respondent,
against
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered April 24, 2008. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions.

ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits as assignee of two individuals. The claims allegedly arose out of two separate accidents. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the causes of action into two separate actions.

Defendant’s answer clearly places at issue with respect to each assignor, among other things, the necessity and reasonableness of the particular medical services rendered. The facts relating to each claim are therefore likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). A severance can be properly based solely upon allegations set forth in the answer, and there is no need to demonstrate prejudice (see Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to sever the causes of action should have been granted.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2009

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07960) FollowedThe provider's 68 assigned claims were properly severed because individual issues predominated and a joint trial risked confusion.
Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50997(U)) FollowedThe insurer's answer supplied a basis to sever five assignors' claims arising from separate accidents without a prejudice affidavit.

Cited by

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 51177(U))The insurers failed to show that EUOs were reasonably required for the provider's claims involving thirteen assignors.

Similar decisions

RJA Physical Therapy, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52047(U))The insurer's severance motion was warranted because claims involving seven assignors and six accidents raised few common issues of law or fact.
Ocean Diagnostics Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50913(U))The provider's claims from 11 separate accidents were properly severed because the defenses raised few common issues of law or fact.
Westchester Radiology & Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Cas. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51703(U))The insurer was entitled to sever six assignors' claims arising from separate accidents and denied for lack of medical necessity.
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U))Severance under CPLR 603 is discretionary and ordinarily stands on appeal absent prejudice to a substantial right.
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))MVAIC's motion to sever claims arising from three separate accidents was granted because few common issues were likely.