September 19, 2016
Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51364(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ortho-passive-motion-inc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2016-nyslip-op-51364u/
- Decided
- September 19, 2016
- Citation
- 2016 NY Slip Op 51364(U) · 53 Misc 3d 130(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51364(U))
| Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51364(U) [53 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 19, 2016 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 19, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2723 Q C
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered October 23, 2013. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).
In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Defendant further demonstrated that, upon receipt of the claims, it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for written verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [l]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). Finally, defendant established that, upon receiving the requested verification, it had timely denied the claims at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [l]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50258[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 19, 2016
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.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer proved that it mailed initial and follow-up IME letters before receiving the claims and that the assignor failed to appear, entitling it to summary judgment.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer established that, upon receiving the requested verification, it timely denied the claims based on the assignor's IME nonappearance.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (this one included) are in the same category.
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 (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer established mailing of the pre-claim IME scheduling letters, timely mailing of verification requests, and timely denial of the claims.
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.
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) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50258(U)) FollowedThe insurer's IME nonappearance denials were timely because it issued them within 30 days after receiving requested written verification.
Similar decisions
- Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51320(U))The provider's objection that the IME notices improperly included an apartment number was unpreserved.
- Barclays Med., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51758(U))The insurer established timely IME requests and denials and the assignor's failure to attend the scheduled examinations.
- By MD, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51232(U))The provider's affidavit failed to rebut the presumption that the assignor received the duly mailed IME notices.
- Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50961(U))The insurer established the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs and timely denials based on those nonappearances.
- Village Med. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50631(U))The insurer established timely IME notices and the assignor's nonappearance, defeating the provider's claims.