October 23, 2007
Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 08038)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op08038/
- Decided
- October 23, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 08038 · 44 AD3d 903
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 23 later decisions (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 Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 08038)
| Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08038 [44 AD3d 903] |
| October 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Hospital for Joint Diseases, as Assignee of Tami Cohen, et al.,
Appellants, v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent. |
—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellants.
Law Offices of Peter X. Dodge, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Sean T. Carew and Alex Monroy of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under insurance contracts, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated April 11, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action to recover payments for medical services rendered by the plaintiff Hospital for Joint Diseases, as assignee of Tami Cohen, and, upon searching the record, awarded the defendant summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.
Ordered that the appeals by the plaintiffs Westchester County Medical Center, as assignee of Iesa Rivera, and Mary Immaculate Hospital, as assignee of Dwayne Cumberbatch, are dismissed, as those plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Hospital for Joint Diseases, as assignee of Tami Cohen; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
Pursuant to the statutory and regulatory framework governing the payment of no-fault automobile insurance benefits, insurance companies are required either to pay or deny a claim for benefits within 30 days of receipt of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). However, the 30-day period in which to pay or deny a claim may be extended where the insurer [*2]makes a request for additional information within 15 business days of its receipt of the claim (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 512, 513 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 569 [2004]), and an insurer is not obligated to pay or deny a claim until all demanded verification is provided (see Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d at 513; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492, 493 [2005]).
The plaintiff Hospital for Joint Diseases, as assignee of Tami Cohen (hereinafter the hospital) made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action to recover payment for medical services by submitting, inter alia, the requisite billing forms, a certified mail receipt referencing the patient, a signed return receipt card also referencing the patient, and the affidavit of its biller averring that the defendant failed to pay the bill or issue a timely denial of claim form within 30 days (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 40 AD3d 984 [2007]; New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 683, 683-684 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIG, Inc., 36 AD3d 900 [2007]). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted evidentiary proof that it timely requested additional information from the hospital to verify its claim, and that when the requested information was not received, it made a timely follow-up request. The defendant also offered unrebutted proof that the hospital ignored its verification requests. Since the requested verification was not provided, the 30-day period within which the defendant was obligated to pay or deny the hospital’s claim did not begin to run (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432 [2004]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533, 534-535 [2004]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 555 [1999]), and the first cause of action was premature.
The hospital’s contention that the additional information which the defendant requested to verify its claim was improper or irrelevant is advanced for the first time on appeal, and thus is not properly before this Court (see Ozelkan v Tyree Bros. Envtl. Servs., Inc., 29 AD3d 877 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp., 9 AD3d 391, 392 [2004]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 294 AD2d 425, 426 [2002]; Weber v Jacobs, 289 AD2d 226, 227 [2001]; St. Clare’s Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 215 AD2d 641, 642 [1995]). Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Krausman and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Legal questions (2)
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 unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?
This decision: Timely requests went unanswered; the claim is not overdue and the action is premature
Held the cause of action premature because the insurer proved timely initial and follow-up verification requests and offered unrebutted proof that the hospital ignored them; the objection that the requests were improper was raised too late.
Of the 374 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 151 (this one included) are in the same category. 4 decisions in other departments that cite or are cited by this one are on the full map.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the hospital made its prima facie showing through billing forms, certified-mail and return receipts referencing the patient and its biller's affidavit of nonpayment, but the insurer's unrebutted verification proof made the claim premature.
Of the 1,063 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 511 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05602)The insurer proved a timely denial but failed to establish that the provider's treatment was unrelated to the accident.
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc. (2004 NY Slip Op 07140)An unanswered verification demand tolls the 30-day payment-or-denial period under 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (1) (i).
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 01750)The insurer proved policy exhaustion on one hospital claim and absence of coverage on another, requiring dismissal of both.
- Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. (2007 NY Slip Op 06650)The hospital's action was premature because it sued approximately two months before the insurer's time to pay or deny expired.
- Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 09484)An insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives all relevant verification requested.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2007 NY Slip Op 04484)The insurer waived claim-form and assignment defenses by failing to object timely to the forms or seek assignment verification.
- New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 03671)An insurer need not set forth a medical rationale in a denial form when the denial rests on a medical examination or peer review report.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01537)The hospital established receipt of its no-fault billing and the insurer's failure to respond within the required 30-day period.
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05413)The hospitals' first and fifth claims were dismissed because policy limits were exhausted and requested verification remained outstanding.
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 06024)The defendants submitted no evidence supporting their claim that the injury and treatment were unrelated to the motor vehicle accident.
Cited by (46)
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 08585) FollowedA provider that ignored two verification requests was estopped from invoking preclusion based on a follow-up sent three days early.
- D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51727(U)) FollowedThe provider's incomplete verification responses left the insurer's time to pay or deny untriggered and the action premature.
- Proscan Imaging, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51176(U)) FollowedThe provider's action was premature because it did not show that it supplied outstanding verification before commencing suit.
- Lenox Hill Radiology v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28275) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove its MRI fee reduction, and the provider failed to establish a business-record foundation for its claim form.
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Brutus (2022 NY Slip Op 50799(U)) FollowedAn insurer's material-misrepresentation defense is subject to the 30-day no-fault deadline for paying or denying claims.
- Darlington Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51634(U)) FollowedUnder 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (b) (3), an insurer need not pay or deny a no-fault claim until it receives the requested verification.
- Radiology Today, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52452(U)) FollowedThe provider's action was premature because requested MRI films remained outstanding after timely verification requests.
- Brooklyn Chiropractic & Sports Therapy, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50904(U)) FollowedThe insurer established lack of medical necessity for one claim and outstanding verification for two, but obtained no dismissal of twelve others.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v A Cent. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50347(U)) FollowedResubmission of an identical claim does not restart the insurer's 30-day period to pay or deny it.
- Queens Radiology Imaging v GEICO (2025 NY Slip Op 51823(U)) FollowedThe insurer established that the provider failed to complete verification within 120 days, warranting summary judgment.
Show all 46 citing decisions
- Dr. Stephen Matrangolo, D.C., P.C. v Encompass Indem. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51338(U)) Followed
- Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 51259(U)) Followed
- Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Physical Medicine & Rehab of NY (2011 NY Slip Op 50848(U)) Followed
- Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50067(U)) Followed
- Triangle R, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50885(U)) Followed
- Triangle R Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52041(U)) Followed
- Lenox Hill Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50800(U)) Followed
- Heights Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52326(U)) Followed
- Med-Tech Prod., Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50930(U)) Followed
- Quality Health Prods. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51641(U)) Followed
- Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50199(U)) Followed
- Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50473(U)) Followed
- Elite Med. NY, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51738(U)) Followed
- Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00351)
- St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 00214)
- St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 09585)
- Dynamic Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20285)
- NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 04219)
- Carle Place Chiropractic v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51065(U))
- Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50447(U))
- New York Univ. Hosp.-Tisch Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 03812)
- Exclusive Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50616(U))
- Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52255(U))
- Amato v State Farm Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20431)
- Triangle R, Inc. v Clarendon Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52159(U))
- Tarnoff Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50670(U))
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50675(U))
- Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50033(U))
- Triangle R, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50256(U))
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28287)
- Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 22242)
- Advanced Neurological Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52203(U))
- Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50249(U))
- Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50251(U))
- Meridian Psychological Servs., PC v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24177)
- St. Barnabas Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 27056)
Similar decisions
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09376)The insurer raised a factual issue by showing a timely denial based on bills submitted more than 45 days after the last medical service.
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v QBE Ins. Corp. (2014 NY Slip Op 00639)Outstanding verification warranted dismissal of the first cause of action, but defective verification proof supported payment on the second.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08747)The insurer's timely denial defeated summary judgment on the provider's first cause of action alleging failure to pay or deny.