November 8, 2010

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mia-acupuncture-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51899u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 8, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U) · 29 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Timeliness and preclusion Fee schedule Medical necessity
Legal questions: Proof of mailing · Lack of medical necessity · Proving a fee schedule defense (see the maps)

Cite as

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 132(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010)

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.

The insurer established timely denials, proper fee schedule reductions, and lack of medical necessity for the remaining acupuncture services. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the provider's judgment, vacated the underlying order, denied provider summary judgment, and granted the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint. The insurer's standard office practices affidavit established timely mailing. Following Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., the insurer properly used the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture performed by chiropractors. For the remaining services, the examining acupuncturist's IME report and affidavit established lack of medical necessity for services after the examination. The treating acupuncturist's opposing affidavit did not meaningfully address or rebut those conclusions.

Reported in New York Official Reports at MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U))

[*1]

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 51899(U) [29 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on November 8, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 8, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-1624 Q C.

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of EXANTUS CONSTANT, Respondent,
against
Geico Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 21, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered June 19, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered upon the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,156.98.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered April 21, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant alleged that it had properly paid for most of the services at issue at a rate reduced pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule and that it had denied reimbursement for the remainder of the services for lack of medical necessity based upon an independent medical examination (IME). The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion, finding that defendant had failed to demonstrate that it had timely mailed its denial of claim forms. The instant appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which this appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affidavit submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and in support of its cross motion sufficiently established that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). For the reasons stated in Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (16 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), it was proper for defendant to use the workers’ compensation fee schedule for [*2]acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive.

With respect to the remaining services, which were denied on the ground of lack of medical necessity, defendant, in support of its cross motion, annexed a report written by the acupuncturist who had performed an IME as well as the acupuncturist’s affidavit attesting to the truth of the report, which established, prima facie, a lack of medical necessity for the services performed after the examination took place. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the treating acupuncturist did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the IME report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff’s motion is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 08, 2010

Legal questions (3)

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.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice

Held, reversing the lower court, that the insurer's affidavit sufficiently established timely mailing of its denials in accordance with its standard office practices and procedures.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.

Lack of medical necessity

Open the full map

Did the insurer’s proof establish lack of medical necessity, and did the provider’s evidence rebut it?

This decision: Insurer's proof established lack of medical necessity and the provider failed to rebut it

Held the IME acupuncturist's sworn report established lack of medical necessity for post-examination services and the treating acupuncturist's affidavit did not meaningfully refer to or rebut it.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 315 (this one included) are in the same category.

Proving a fee schedule defense

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove that the amount billed exceeded the applicable workers’ compensation fee schedule?

This decision: Insurer proved the billed amount exceeded the applicable fee schedule

Held the insurer properly used the chiropractor acupuncture fee schedule to determine the amount payable to the licensed acupuncturist, so its reduced payments were proper.

Excess shownNot established; openDefense rejectedSplit by chargeThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 284 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 146 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27164) FollowedThe insurer properly reimbursed the licensed acupuncturist at chiropractor rates because similar services and licensing requirements supported them.
Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)) FollowedThe provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.
Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52321(U))The insurer established timely denials and lack of medical necessity, and the provider's chiropractor failed to rebut the insurer's showing.

Cited by

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Right Choice Supply, Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 23039)A no-fault arbitrator need not apply summary judgment rules requiring a provider's medical evidence to specifically rebut an insurer's peer review.

Similar decisions

Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51772(U))The insurer established timely denials, full fee-schedule payment for certain acupuncture services and lack of necessity for the remaining services.
Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51291(U))The insurer proved full fee-schedule payment for earlier acupuncture services and lack of medical necessity for later services.
Gentle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52226(U))An insurer may use the chiropractic acupuncture fee schedule to reimburse acupuncture services performed by a licensed acupuncturist.
MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. (2012 NY Slip Op 50393(U))The insurer established timely fee schedule denials and full payment for the billed acupuncture services under the workers' compensation fee schedule.
Z.A. Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51842(U))The insurer established proper acupuncture reimbursement under the chiropractic fee schedule and lack of medical necessity for later services.