June 28, 2011
Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 05679)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mount-sinai-hosp-v-government-empls-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-05679/
- Decided
- June 28, 2011
- Citation
- 2011 NY Slip Op 05679 · 85 AD3d 1135
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Proof of mailing · Claimant's prima facie case on motions (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 Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 05679)
| Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05679 [85 AD3d 1135] |
| June 28, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Mount Sinai Hospital, as Assignee of Meilun Chun, et al.,
Plaintiffs, and New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as Assignee of Gregory Berkley,
Respondent, v Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant. |
—[*1] Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega and P. Stephanie Estevez of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance policies, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered June 29, 2010, which granted the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley, for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley, for summary judgment on its fourth cause of action is denied.
The plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley (hereinafter the hospital), made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the fourth cause of action to recover no-fault medical payments by demonstrating that the necessary billing forms had been mailed to and received by the defendant and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317-318 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 929 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]).
However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it issued a denial of claim form dated April 2, 2008, to the hospital (see NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190 [2011]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on its fourth cause of action. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
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.
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 the insurer's opposition proof raised a triable issue as to whether it issued a denial of claim form, which defeated the hospital's summary judgment motion despite its prima facie showing.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the hospital made its prima facie showing by demonstrating the billing forms were mailed and received and not paid or denied within 30 days, though the insurer's opposition then raised a triable issue.
Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 513 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067)An insurer that fails to timely seek verification of an assignment cannot later contest its validity when the underlying claim is covered.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01458)The insurer's defective denial and insufficient mailing proof precluded its intoxication exclusion defense.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
- NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 04436) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues about timely denial and whether the assignor's injury resulted from driving while intoxicated.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Cited by
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 02867)The insurer defeated the provider's summary judgment motion by proving timely verification requests and denial after verification was received.
Similar decisions
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01537)The hospital established receipt of its no-fault billing and the insurer's failure to respond within the required 30-day period.
- Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08330)The insurer's evidence of a timely denial raised a triable issue defeating the provider's motion based solely on untimeliness.
- Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 00490)The insurer raised a triable issue about the provider's verification compliance but failed to establish entitlement to dismissal.
- Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 08953)An insurer's additional verification request following an N-F5 submission need not use a prescribed form to toll the payment deadline.
- St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 09585)The insurer raised a triable issue whether the provider timely complied with its verification demand, defeating the provider's summary judgment motion.