January 13, 2016

Life Tree Acupuncture P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50023(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts that the court considered in this case included the defendant-insurer's timely and proper mailing of notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the plaintiff's assignor, who failed to appear for the IMEs. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant was entitled to request the IMEs prior to its receipt of the plaintiff's claim forms, and whether the defendant had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss when the assignor failed to appear for the requested acupuncture IMEs. The holding of the case was that the defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-provider's claim for first-party no-fault benefits, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. The court found that the defendant had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss when the assignor failed to appear for the IMEs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Life Tree Acupuncture P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50023(U))

Life Tree Acupuncture P.C., a/a/o St. John Yohance, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Republic Western Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-provider’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 [2013]). Contrary to plaintiff’s specific contention, defendant was entitled to request the IMEs prior to its receipt of plaintiff’s claim forms on January 10, 2011 (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Steven Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]), and such request complied with the applicable procedures and time-frames set forth in the no-fault regulations (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 19-20 [2005]; cf. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841 [2015]). Moreover, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining chiropractor/acupuncturist and an employee of defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424).

In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or [*2]otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560). Accordingly, when the assignor failed to appear for the requested acupuncture IMEs, defendant had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424), and even though defendant initially denied certain of the claims on different grounds (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 13, 2016