June 6, 2016
Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50924(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-praetorian-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50924u/
- Decided
- June 6, 2016
- Citation
- 2016 NY Slip Op 50924(U) · 52 Misc 3d 128(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- IME no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
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 Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50924(U))
| Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50924(U) [52 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on June 6, 2016 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2143 K C
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered July 25, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits from the doctor and chiropractor who were to perform the IMEs, which affidavits were sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 06, 2016
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.
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 affidavits of the doctor and chiropractor scheduled to perform the IMEs sufficient to establish the assignor's nonappearance, the only issue left for trial, so the insurer was entitled to summary judgment.
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.
Similar decisions
- White Plains Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on the assignors' failure to appear for duly scheduled IMEs was granted on appeal.
- Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50392(U))The insurer's affidavits established that the assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs. The provider sought summary judgment for assigned no-fault benefits, and the insurer cross-moved to dismiss.
- I.V. Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50380(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of IME notices and the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims.
- Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52062(U))An assignor's appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Cortland Med. Supply, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50394(U))The insurer established the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs and timely mailing of the requests and denials.