October 5, 2012
Rainbow Med. Care, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51923(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rainbow-med-care-p-c-v-kemper-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-51923u/
- Decided
- October 5, 2012
- Citation
- 2012 NY Slip Op 51923(U) · 37 Misc 3d 128(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- IME no-show
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 Rainbow Med. Care, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51923(U))
| Rainbow Med. Care, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 51923(U) [37 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on October 5, 2012 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-1892 K C.
against
Kemper Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered January 15, 2010. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, without 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.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by the owner of the company retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit sufficiently established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that company’s standard office practices and procedures (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]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit by the chiropractor who had been retained to perform the IMEs which was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s 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]). In addition, defendant established that the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; see also Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1).
Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
[*2]
Decision Date: October 05, 2012
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 timely mailing of the IME scheduling letters and, through the chiropractor's affidavit, the assignor's nonappearance, entitling it to summary judgment.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (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 its denials based on the IME nonappearance were timely mailed, as part of its no-show defense.
Of the 500 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 334 (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 scheduling company owner's standard-practice affidavit proved timely mailing of the IME letters, and the insurer proved timely mailing of the denials.
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
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)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.
- 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.
Similar decisions
- Neomy Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52279(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of the IME notices and denials and the assignor's failure to appear.
- All About Rehabilitation & P.T., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51815(U))An assignor's appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50396(U))The insurer established that the assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs, and the provider raised no triable issue of fact.
- J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50635(U))An assignor's appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
- Jamhil Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51644(U))The insurer established timely mailing of IME notices and a denial based on the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The president of the independent medical review service retained to schedule the examinations established timely mailing of the scheduling letters.