January 19, 2018

Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50095(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C. sought unpaid first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered between May 7, 2014, and July 16, 2014. The main issue decided was whether defendant Hereford Insurance Co. was required to establish that it had timely denied the claims in order to preserve its fee schedule defense. The court found that, under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii); (2), no payment was due for claimed medical services that exceeded the charges permissible under Insurance Law sections 5108 (a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered by medical providers. The holding of the court was that defendant was not required to establish that it had timely denied the claims in order to preserve its fee schedule defense, and therefore, the judgment was reversed, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50095(U))

Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50095(U)) [*1]
Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co.
2018 NY Slip Op 50095(U) [58 Misc 3d 151(A)]
Decided on January 19, 2018
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 19, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-950 K C

Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Alex Swan, Respondent,

against

Hereford Insurance Co., Appellant.

Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Thomas Wolf, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C. (Marina Josovich, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 27, 2016, deemed from a judgment of that court entered April 7, 2016 (see CLPR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the January 27, 2016 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,103.32.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered January 27, 2016 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 seeks the unpaid balance of two claims for services that plaintiff rendered from May 7, 2014 through July 16, 2014. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff seeks to recover amounts which are in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Defendant supported its cross motion with an affidavit by its certified medical coder and biller, which affidavit was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had fully paid the claims in accordance with the fee schedule. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as plaintiff submitted only an affirmation by its counsel, who did not establish that she possessed personal knowledge of the facts. In an order entered January 27, 2016, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and denied defendant’s cross motion on the ground that defendant was precluded from interposing its defense because defendant had failed to timely deny plaintiff’s claims.

As defendant argues, 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii); (2) provides that, effective April 1, 2013, “no payment shall be due for [] claimed medical services under any circumstances . . . for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108 (a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered [*2]by medical providers.” Thus, defendant was not required to establish that it had timely denied the claims in order to preserve its fee schedule defense, as the services at issue had been provided between May 7, 2014 and July 16, 2014 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g] [1] [ii]; [2]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered January 27, 2016 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 19, 2018