February 5, 2007

King’s Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/kings-med-supply-inc-v-geico-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50232u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 5, 2007
Citation: 2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U) · 14 Misc 3d 136(A)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 3 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

King's Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007)

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.

Severance of five no-fault claims was upheld because separate accidents and peer reviews presented few common factual or legal issues. The medical-supply provider sued as assignee of five persons injured in separate accidents. It opposed severance because all claims were denied for lack of medical necessity and four involved the same equipment type. Under CPLR 603, severance rests in judicial discretion and should not be disturbed absent prejudice to a substantial right. Each denial rested on a different peer review, potentially requiring five doctors' testimony, and a single trial risked confusion over distinct accidents, injuries and supplies. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting the insurer's severance motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at King’s Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U))

[*1]

King’s Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co.

2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U) [14 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on February 5, 2007

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 5, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-303 K C.

King’s Medical Supply Inc. a/a/o Iolene Williams, Mostafa Bennejima, Emilio Santos, Jeffrey Adams and Marnol Decastro, Appellant,
against
GEICO Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered January 6, 2006. The order granted defendant’s motion to sever five causes of action.

Order affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff medical supply company commenced this action to recover the sum of $4,880 in first-party no-fault benefits, as assignee of five individuals who were injured in five separate motor vehicle accidents. Defendant insurance company moved for severance of the causes of action, arguing that there were five separate and distinct
claims involving different questions of fact and law. Plaintiff maintained that all of the claims were denied for the same reason, lack of medical necessity, and that four of the five claims sought payment for the same type of medical equipment. The court below granted defendant’s motion for severance and directed plaintiff to purchase four additional index numbers.

The decision to grant a severance (see CPLR 603) is an exercise in judicial discretion, which, in the absence of a party’s showing of prejudice to a substantial right, should not be disturbed on appeal (see Mothersil v Town Sports Intl., 24 AD3d 424, 425 [2005]; Anderson v Singh, 305 AD2d 620 [2003]). In the instant matter, denial of the claims was based on five different peer reviews, which could result in testimony at trial from five different doctors on the issue of medical necessity. “[T]he particular facts herein relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of law or fact, even if the assignors’ insurance policies are identical” (S.I.A. Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51170[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). A single trial involving different sets of facts regarding the [*2]underlying accidents, injuries and nature and cost of supplies has a danger of being unwieldy and confusing. Accordingly, the order granting severance is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 5, 2007

Cited in this decision

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

S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U)) FollowedThe provider's claims for 11 assignors were severed because they presented few common issues and a joint trial risked confusion.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

City Chiropractic, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50730(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to show that claims involving two accidents and numerous pleaded defenses warranted severance under CPLR 603.
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U)) FollowedSeverance under CPLR 603 is discretionary and ordinarily stands on appeal absent prejudice to a substantial right.
Rite Aid Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51161(U)) FollowedThe insurer was entitled to severance because the two assignors' claims arose from separate accidents and involved different defenses.
Majestic Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51785(U))The insurer failed to justify severance merely by citing separate accidents and numerous affirmative defenses.
Colin Clarke, MD PC. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50798(U))MVAIC failed to show that joining one provider's claims for six assignors caused inconvenience or prejudice warranting severance.
Unique Physical Therapy, PT, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2021 NY Slip Op 50323(U))No-fault claims arising from separate accidents do not alone warrant severance under CPLR 603.
Himalayans Acupuncture, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 50276(U))Separate accidents and multiple pleaded defenses did not establish that the provider's claims required severance.

Similar decisions

Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50997(U))The insurer's answer supplied a basis to sever five assignors' claims arising from separate accidents without a prejudice affidavit.
Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27034)The insurer's severance motion was granted because a single trial of claims from separate accidents risked confusion.
Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))Severance of no-fault claims may rest solely on allegations in the answer without a showing of prejudice.
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))MVAIC's motion to sever claims arising from three separate accidents was granted because few common issues were likely.
Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51704(U))The insurer's severance motion was granted because the four assignors' claims arose from separate accidents with few common factual issues.