May 31, 2016
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 04156)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-v-professional-chiropractic-care-p-c-2016ny-slip-op-04156/
- Decided
- May 31, 2016
- Citation
- 2016 NY Slip Op 04156 · 139 AD3d 645
- Posture
- Article 75 petition
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Earlier history
- Appeal from Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 50936(U)) (Reversed)
- Later treatment
- Followed in 3 later decisions (see Cited by)
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 Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 04156)
| Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04156 [139 AD3d 645] |
| May 31, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Global Liberty Insurance Co.,
Appellant, v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C., Respondent. |
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Office of Sukhibir Singh, Richmond Hill (Ralph C. Caio of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 10, 2015, which denied the petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the award vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the law, which petitioner insurer had presented to the master arbitrator, that the no-fault policy issued by petitioner was void ab initio due to respondent’s assignor’s failure to attend duly scheduled independent medical exams (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2013]). The alleged error in petitioner’s denial of claim form is of “no moment” (Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]), and was not a sufficient or rational basis for the award (see Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2015], citing Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]).
Respondent waived its objections regarding improper service of the petition, since it never moved to dismiss the petition on those grounds (see CPLR 3211 [e]; B.N. Realty Assoc. v Lichtenstein, 21 AD3d 793, 796 [1st Dept 2005]; Matter of Resnick v Town of Canaan, 38 AD3d 949, 951 [3d Dept 2007]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 48 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50936(U).]
Legal questions (2)
Questions 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.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: No-show voids coverage; insurer need not show a timely denial
Vacated as arbitrary a master arbitrator's award that ignored the rule that the assignor's IME no-show voided the policy ab initio, holding the alleged error in the denial form of no moment.
Of the 36 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 29 (this one included) are in the same category.
When does a court vacate, modify or confirm a no-fault arbitrator’s or master arbitrator’s award under CPLR article 75?
This decision: Award vacated or modified because it was irrational, arbitrary and capricious, without evidentiary support or contrary to settled law
Vacated the master arbitrator's award as arbitrary because it irrationally ignored First Department law, presented to it, that the assignor's IME no-shows voided the policy ab initio; an alleged denial-form error was no rational basis.
Of the 55 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 13 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas (2013 NY Slip Op 07273) FollowedFailure to attend duly scheduled IMEs voids the policy ab initio and permits retroactive denial of claims regardless of denial timeliness.
- Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC (2011 NY Slip Op 01948) FollowedAn assignor's failure to attend required IMEs permits retroactive denial of no-fault claims regardless of denial timeliness.
- Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 01750) FollowedA no-fault arbitrator acts arbitrarily by giving an IME report no weight solely for lack of notarization under CPLR 2106.
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 50936(U)) ReversedA rational master arbitration award is not subject to judicial vacatur for mere errors of substantive law.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Therapeutic Physical Therapy, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 01833) FollowedAn insurer preserves a fee-schedule defense by checking box 18 on the NF-10 denial form to assert noncompliance with the fee schedule.
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Top Q. Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 06445) FollowedThe master arbitrator's award was arbitrary because it ignored controlling law on the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs. Following Hereford Ins. Co. v Lida's Med. Supply, Inc., the policy was void ab initio because of that nonappearance.
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Capital Chiropractic, P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 01466) FollowedThe master arbitrator's award was arbitrary because it ignored precedent treating IME nonappearance as voiding the policy from inception.
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Smart Choice Med., P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 03191)An injured claimant's failure to attend requested IMEs breaches a condition precedent and vitiates no-fault coverage.
Similar decisions
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Coastal Anesthesia Servs., LLC (2016 NY Slip Op 08964)A no-fault arbitrator has discretion to refuse late submissions under 11 NYCRR 65-4.2 (b) (3).
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Avangard Supply, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 06855)An insurer's vague IME-based denial supported a rational arbitration award of no-fault benefits to the providers.
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc. P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 51792(U))The insurer's petition to vacate a master arbitration award upholding the provider's reimbursement claim was denied.
- 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U))A no-fault arbitrator may raise any issue the arbitrator deems relevant under 11 NYCRR 65-4.4 (e) and 65-4.5 (o).
- Golden Earth Chiropractic & Acupuncture, PLLC v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2016 NY Slip Op 26395)A master arbitrator may correct an error of substantive law without independently weighing evidence or determining credibility.