October 15, 2013

Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U))

Headnote

The court considered the conflicting medical expert opinions presented by both parties regarding the medical necessity of the chiropractic services underlying the plaintiff's first-party no-fault claim. The main issue decided was whether the conflicting expert opinions raised a triable issue, and the court held that they did, thereby denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the conflicting medical expert opinions presented by the parties were sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the medical necessity of the chiropractic services, and therefore the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U))

Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U)) [*1]

Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co.

2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U) [41 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on October 15, 2013

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 15, 2013

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570160/13.

Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP, a/a/o George Karavias, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered January 24, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered January 24, 2012, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree that the conflicting medical expert opinions adduced by the parties sufficed to raise a triable issue as to the medical necessity of the chiropractic services underlying plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claim.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 15, 2013