October 8, 2013

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51737(U))

Headnote

The court considered the request by the defendant to compel the plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition in a case where a provider was seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to reasonable discovery of any facts bearing on the controversy to assist in the preparation for trial. The court held that under CPLR 3101 (a), parties are entitled to full disclosure of all material and necessary matters in the prosecution or defense of an action, and that the defendant, in defending the action on the ground that the services rendered lacked medical necessity, was entitled to compel the plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition. The holding was that the order denying the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition was reversed, and the branch of the defendant's motion was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51737(U))

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51737(U)) [*1]

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co.

2013 NY Slip Op 51737(U) [41 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on October 8, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2013

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-3066 K C.

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. as Assignee of TIFFANIE ROGERS, Respondent, —
against
Interboro Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered November 1, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition.

CPLR 3101 (a) provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” Parties to an action are entitled to reasonable discovery “of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 129[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51335[U][App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). As defendant is defending this action on the ground, among others, that the services rendered lacked medical necessity, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce its treating chiropractor for a deposition is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: October 08, 2013