November 9, 2018

Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/island-life-chiropractic-pain-care-pllc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2018-nyslip-op-51594u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 9, 2018
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U) · 61 Misc 3d 139(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: EUO no-show
Legal questions: No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)

Cite as

Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 139(A), 2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018)

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.

An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance. The insurer must show that it twice duly demanded EUOs from the provider, the provider twice failed to appear, and the claims were timely denied, following Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon. The insurer's submissions sufficiently demonstrated the provider's EUO nonappearance, and the provider's argument that objective reasons for the requests were required did not defeat the motion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing the assigned no-fault claims.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U))

[*1]

Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 51594(U) [61 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on November 9, 2018

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 9, 2018

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-435 K C

Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of Cooper, Kadeem, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 27, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). As [*2]plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018

Legal questions

A question 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.

No-show defense: insurer's proof

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?

This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected

Held the insurer's proof sufficient to show the provider failed to appear for the EUOs and that it need not set forth objective reasons for the EUO requests to make its prima facie case.

Defense provedMailing not provedNonappearance not provedRequests not compliantTriable issueNo-show excusedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092) FollowedThe assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51653(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to identify discovery that could raise a triable issue concerning the insurer's EUO nonappearance defense.

Similar decisions

Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51551(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on the assignor's EUO nonappearance was granted on appeal.
Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51552(U))An insurer need not set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearances.
Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50700(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance.
LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51655(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.