November 3, 2017

Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/holtsville-chiropractic-p-c-v-autoone-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51516u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 3, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U) · 57 Misc 3d 149(A)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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.

The insurer's motion to compel a provider deposition and strike the notice of trial was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., No. 2014-2842 Q C, and directed the examination.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U))

[*1]

Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U) [57 Misc 3d 149(A)]

Decided on November 3, 2017

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-160 Q C

Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Ana Gomez, Respondent,
against
AutoOne Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Mandell & Santora, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered December 8, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial are granted, and the examination shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied the branches of a motion by defendant seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial.

For the reasons stated in S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Jin Hee Ma v AutoOne Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2842 Q C], decided herewith), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial should have been granted; therefore, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to strike the notice of trial should also have been granted.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial are granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 03, 2017

Similar decisions

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U))The insurer's motion to compel the provider to appear for an examination before trial was granted on appeal.
Bay Plaza Chiropractic, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51082(U))The insurer was entitled to a provider deposition on medical necessity, but a triable factual issue precluded summary judgment.
North Bronx Med. Health Care v Auto One Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51625(U))The insurer was entitled to depose the treating doctor, but factual issues on medical necessity defeated summary judgment on both claims.
Complete Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50684(U))The provider's directed verdict on medical necessity was reversed after the insurer's substitute expert was excluded as hearsay.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51737(U))An insurer defending a no-fault action on medical necessity grounds is entitled to depose the provider's treating chiropractor.