August 8, 2014

Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 51262(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/promed-durable-equip-inc-v-geico-ins-2014-ny-slip-op51262u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: August 8, 2014
Citation: 2014 NY Slip Op 51262(U) · 44 Misc 3d 139(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins., 44 Misc 3d 139(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 51262(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014)

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.

The insurer's unrebutted peer reviews established that the supplies lacked medical necessity, supporting summary judgment dismissal. The insurer appealed denial of its cross motion in the provider's assigned no-fault action. Its affidavit established timely mailing of the denial forms, and two affirmed peer review reports each supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination that the supplies were unnecessary. The provider did not rebut that prima facie showing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order and granted the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 51262(U))

[*1]

Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins.

2014 NY Slip Op 51262(U) [44 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 8, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 8, 2014

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ.
2012-1192 K C

Promed Durable Equipment, Inc. as Assignee of ALLI SHAVANNA, Respondent,
against
GEICO Insurance, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered February 21, 2012. The order denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) the denial of claim forms at issue, which denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Defendant also annexed to its motion papers two affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. Plaintiff did not rebut defendant’s prima facie showing. Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is 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]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: August 08, 2014

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.

Lack of medical necessity

Open the full map

Did the insurer’s proof establish lack of medical necessity, and did the provider’s evidence rebut it?

This decision: Insurer's proof established lack of medical necessity and the provider failed to rebut it

Granted the insurer summary judgment because two affirmed peer reviews set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the supplies unnecessary and the provider did not rebut them.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 315 (this one included) are in the same category.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

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's affidavit established timely mailing of its medical-necessity denials.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U))The insurer's examining physician supplied an unrebutted factual basis and medical rationale that the billed MRI was unnecessary.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52455(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.
A Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51342(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.

Similar decisions

New Way Med. Supply Corp. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50880(U))The insurer's peer reviews were unrebutted because appellate review was limited to the papers Civil Court considered.
Quality Health Prods. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50415(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review report supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for denying the supplies as medically unnecessary.
Sky Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50868(U))The provider's medical affidavit failed to rebut the insurer's peer review showing that the disputed supply lacked medical necessity.
Iav Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52155(U))The insurer's peer review established lack of medical necessity for the supplies, and the provider did not oppose the cross motion.
All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51417(U))The insurer's denial preserved its medical-necessity defense, and an unrebutted affirmed peer review established that the supplies were unnecessary.