October 26, 2011

MSSA Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51997(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, American Transit Insurance Company, had timely denied the plaintiff's claim for first-party no-fault benefits based on a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided to the plaintiff's assignor. The court found that the defendant had demonstrated that it had timely denied the claim and had provided an affirmed peer review report which showed a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. The court held that the defendant's showing that the supplies were not medically necessary was not rebutted by the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. As a result, the order denying the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was reversed and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at MSSA Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51997(U))

MSSA Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51997(U)) [*1]
MSSA Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 51997(U) [33 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on October 26, 2011
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 26, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-1760 K C.
MSSA Corp. as Assignee of SOPHIA CLARKE, Respondent,

against

American Transit Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alice Fisher Rubin, J.), entered February 2, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, 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. The Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, and found that plaintiff had established its prima facie case, that defendant had demonstrated that it had timely denied plaintiff’s claim and that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies provided to plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, an affirmed peer review report which set forth the factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. Defendant’s showing that such supplies were not medically necessary was not rebutted by plaintiff. In light of the foregoing, and the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding that defendant had timely denied the claim based on a lack of medical necessity, a finding which plaintiff does not challenge, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: October 26, 2011