December 23, 2009

Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quality-rehab-p-t-p-c-v-geico-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-52632u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 23, 2009
Citation: 2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U) · 26 Misc 3d 127(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity Timeliness and preclusion Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Proof of mailing · Lack of medical necessity · Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)

Cite as

Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 127(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009)

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 timely denial and affirmed IME reports raised a triable issue of medical necessity. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the provider's judgment, vacated the grant of summary judgment, denied the provider's motion, and remitted for further proceedings. The billing manager's affidavit sufficiently established that the provider's supporting documents were admissible business records under CPLR 4518. Contrary to the Civil Court's finding, the insurer's claims representative established timely mailing of a denial asserting lack of medical necessity among other grounds. The affirmed reports supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that the services were unnecessary. The appeal concerned only the grant of the provider's motion, leaving the denial of the insurer's cross motion outside its scope.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U))

[*1]

Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U) [26 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on December 23, 2009

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected in part through January 7, 2010; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 23, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2008-2033 Q C.

Quality Rehab and P.T., P.C. as assignee of Phillip Lawson, Respondent,
against
GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered September 22, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered November 5, 2008 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $292.24 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment which was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant’s claims representative sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim form, which denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground, among others, that the services rendered were not medically necessary (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Also annexed to the motion papers were affirmed independent medical examination reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewers’ [*2]opinions that the medical services provided were not medically necessary (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51412[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As a result, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied due to the existence of an issue of fact.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2009

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.

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

Reversing the lower court's contrary finding, held the claims representative's affidavit sufficiently established timely mailing of the denial form.

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 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.

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 was enough to defeat the provider's motion but not to win

Held the affirmed IME reports setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale that the services were unnecessary raised an issue of fact, so the provider's motion should have been denied.

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, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

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)

Rejected the insurer's only challenge, holding the billing manager's affidavit sufficient to make the annexed documents admissible under CPLR 4518.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

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.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846) FollowedThe providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345) FollowedAn insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50680(U)) FollowedPeer reviews citing insufficient information do not raise a medical-necessity issue without proof that the insurer sought verification.
Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51412(U)) FollowedThe insurer's peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale sufficient to raise a triable issue of medical necessity.

Similar decisions

High Quality Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52373(U))The insurer's peer review and IME reports established lack of medical necessity, and the provider's medical affidavit failed to rebut them.
Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52635(U))The insurer's proof of timely denials and supported peer reviews raised a triable issue of medical necessity.
Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51737(U))The insurer's timely denial and supported peer review raised a triable issue of medical necessity, defeating provider summary judgment.
Quality Health Prods. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52299(U))The insurer's peer review was admissible because its facsimile signature was placed by the reviewing doctor or at the doctor's direction.
Quality Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51268(U))The provider's doctor's affidavit failed to rebut three peer reviews establishing that the supplies lacked medical necessity.