July 11, 2006
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05602)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-05602/
- Decided
- July 11, 2006
- Citation
- 2006 NY Slip Op 05602 · 31 AD3d 512
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
- Later treatment
- Followed in 10 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 New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05602)
| New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 05602 [31 AD3d 512] |
| July 11, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| New York and Presbyterian Hospital et al., Appellants, v Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated September 30, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on their first cause of action to recover payments for medical services rendered by the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.
Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Mount Vernon Hospital is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, without costs or disbursements, and the first cause of action is reinstated.
Pursuant to the statutory and regulatory framework governing the payment of no-fault automobile benefits, insurance companies are required to either pay or deny a claim for benefits within 30 days of receipt of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). [*2]However, the 30-day period may be extended where the insurer makes a request for additional information within 15 business days of its receipt of the claim (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 27 AD3d 96, 100 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 569-570 [2004]), and an insurer is not obligated to pay or deny a claim until all demanded verification is provided (see Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra at 100-101; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492, 493 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]).
The plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital (hereinafter the plaintiff) made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its first cause of action by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been mailed and received, and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra at 100; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v AIU Ins. Co., 20 AD3d 515, 516 [2005]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., supra at 570). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendant established that it had made a timely request for additional information and that it timely denied the claim within 30 days of receipt of the hospital records it had requested to verify the claim. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action.
However, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Although the defendant established that its denial of the subject claim was timely, it failed to submit sufficient evidentiary proof, in admissible form, to make a prima facie showing that it properly denied the claim upon the ground that the medical treatment provided was unrelated to the accident (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v AIU Ins. Co., supra; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp., 9 AD3d 392 [2004]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 250 [2004]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 20 [1999]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, 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 the insurer show the claimed injuries did not arise from a covered accident (staged, intentional, or unrelated)?
This decision: Insurer's motion denied: proof did not establish the defense prima facie; defense still open
Held the insurer, though its denial was timely, failed to submit sufficient admissible proof that the hospital's treatment was unrelated to the accident, so its cross motion to dismiss was denied and the first cause of action reinstated.
Of the 234 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 20 (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 proof that the billing forms were mailed and received and not paid or denied within 30 days, but the insurer's proof of a timely verification request and denial defeated the motion.
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. One decision in other departments that cites or is cited by this one is on the full map.
Cited in this decision
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc. (2004 NY Slip Op 07140)An unanswered verification demand tolls the 30-day payment-or-denial period under 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (1) (i).
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 01750)The insurer proved policy exhaustion on one hospital claim and absence of coverage on another, requiring dismissal of both.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v AIU Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06014)A resubmitted no-fault claim previously and timely denied is not subject to a new 30-day payment-or-denial period.
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 06025)The defendants offered no evidence of a timely denial or of their asserted lack of causal relation between the accident, injury, and treatment.
- Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 04304)The hospital obtained summary judgment because the insurer failed to raise admissible factual issues on causation and policy cancellation.
Cited by (42)
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933) FollowedThe provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
- Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26496) FollowedA provider's deficient proof of claim submission may be cured by an insurer's denial form submitted in opposition to summary judgment.
- Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 21039) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its third-party biller's affidavit lacked a business-record foundation.
- St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 09585) FollowedThe insurer raised a triable issue whether the provider timely complied with its verification demand, defeating the provider's summary judgment motion.
- Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 51835(U)) FollowedThe provider established its prima facie case against MVAIC, including the assignor's New York residence through a notarized notice of intention to claim.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 02867) FollowedThe insurer defeated the provider's summary judgment motion by proving timely verification requests and denial after verification was received.
- Mount Sinai Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 05779) FollowedThe insurer's denial of a defective UB-04 submission did not excuse its failure to respond to the hospital's later NF-5 claim.
- South Nassau Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51300(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to establish timely denial mailing because its affidavit did not prove mailing practices during the relevant period.
- Yklik, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50868(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to establish that the insurer had neither paid nor denied the claim within the required 30-day period.
- American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U)) FollowedA Workers' Compensation Board rejection does not restart the insurer's 30-day period to deny a claim for lack of medical necessity.
Show all 42 citing decisions
- Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U))
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)
- Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 08038)
- Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00351)
- Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 21340)
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Statewide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51863(U))
- Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27192)
- Exclusive Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50616(U))
- Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52255(U))
- Ezra Supply, Inc. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 22383)
- Tarnoff Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50670(U))
- Garden State Anesthesia Assoc., PA v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 23332)
- Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50219(U))
- Quality Health Prods. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50328(U))
- Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 22242)
- New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50681(U))
- Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50063(U))
- All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50069(U))
- Queens Radiology Imaging v GEICO (2025 NY Slip Op 51823(U))
- Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50965(U))
- Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Physical Medicine & Rehab of NY (2011 NY Slip Op 50848(U))
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28287)
- Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52303(U))
- AB Med., PLLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52453(U))
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50398(U))
- Complete Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50220(U))
- Pro-Align Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50341(U))
- Tian Shan Acupuncture PC v Global Liberty Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50728(U))
- Dassa Orthopedic Med. Servs. PC v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51664(U))
- Alsaad Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op50532(U))
- Sabodash v Hereford Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51099(U))
- Life Equip., Inc v Mid-Century Ins Co (2022 NY Slip Op 50877(U))
Similar decisions
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Selective Ins. Co. of Am. (2007 NY Slip Op 06848)The insurer's conclusory medical affidavit failed to raise a factual issue that the treated condition was unrelated to the automobile accident.
- Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 02235)The insurer failed to prove mailing of its denial, and the denial was incomplete even if timely.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09376)The insurer raised a factual issue by showing a timely denial based on bills submitted more than 45 days after the last medical service.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Eagle Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 03210)An insurer was precluded from asserting delayed verification as a defense after failing to pay or deny upon receiving the requested material.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08747)The insurer's timely denial defeated summary judgment on the provider's first cause of action alleging failure to pay or deny.