March 21, 2019

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Medco Tech, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 02167)

Headnote

The relevant facts of the case involve a dispute between Global Liberty Insurance Company and Medco Tech, Inc. regarding a claim for no-fault insurance benefits for medical equipment provided to an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident. Global Liberty Insurance Company relied on a peer review report that concluded the individual's condition was degenerative and not post-traumatic, and therefore the surgery undergone was not medically necessary in relation to the accident. The main issue decided by the court was whether the need for the medical equipment was causally related to the accident. The holding of the court was that the arbitral award must be vacated and a de novo hearing held because, based on the record before them, it would be irrational to conclude that the need for the medical equipment was causally related to the accident. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment against Global Liberty Insurance Company and granted their motion to vacate the award, while denying Medco Tech, Inc.'s motion to confirm the award.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Medco Tech, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 02167)

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Medco Tech, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 02167)
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Medco Tech, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 02167 [170 AD3d 558]
March 21, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 1, 2019

[*1]

 In the Matter of Global Liberty Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
Medco Tech, Inc., as Assignee of Coreen Josiah, Respondent.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP, Great Neck (William M. Purdy of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered August 29, 2016, against petitioner in favor of respondent, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered January 12, 2016, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitral award and remand to the lower arbitrator for a de novo hearing, and granted respondent’s motion to confirm the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, petitioner’s motion granted, and respondent’s motion denied.

Respondent seeks from petitioner no-fault insurance benefits for medical equipment that respondent provided to its assignor, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident. In denying respondent’s claim, petitioner relied on a peer review report that concluded, based on a review of the medical records, that the assignor’s condition was degenerative in nature and not post-traumatic and therefore that the surgery undergone by the assignor was “not medically necessary in relation to the accident” (emphasis supplied). The arbitral award must be vacated and a de novo hearing held, because, on the record before us, as argued, it would be irrational to conclude that the need for the subject medical equipment was causally related to the accident (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 232 [1982]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-19 [2d Dept 1999]; Shahid Mian, M.D., P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 135[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50589[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.