March 1, 2013
RDB Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50301(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rdb-med-care-p-c-v-praetorian-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50301u/
- Decided
- March 1, 2013
- Citation
- 2013 NY Slip Op 50301(U) · 38 Misc 3d 145(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Split result
- Issues
- IME no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
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 RDB Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50301(U))
| RDB Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 50301(U) [38 Misc 3d 145(A)] |
| Decided on March 1, 2013 |
| Appellate Term, First 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Torres, J.P., Schoenfeld, Shulman,JJ
570041/12.
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered July 20, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered July 20, 2011, modified to dismiss plaintiff’s first through sixth, and ninth trough twelfth causes of action; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.
The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the no-fault claims set forth in the first through sixth, and ninth through twelfth causes of action, by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin at 560).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
[*2]
Decision Date: March 01,
2013
Legal questions
A question 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 and proper mailing of the IME notices and the assignor's nonappearance for the claims in ten causes of action, and the provider did not specifically deny the nonappearance or contest mailing or reasonableness.
Of the 163 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 92 (this one included) are in the same category. One decision in other departments that cites or is cited by this one is on the full map.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC (2011 NY Slip Op 01948) FollowedAn assignor's failure to attend required IMEs permits retroactive denial of no-fault claims regardless of denial timeliness.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) Contrasted (cf., but see)An 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
- Coast Med. Diagnostic, PC v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50381(U))The insurer established timely and proper mailing of IME notices and the assignor's failure to appear, warranting summary judgment.
- Seacoast Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52354(U))The insurer established timely and proper IME and EUO notices and the assignor's nonappearance, warranting dismissal.
- MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U))The insurer proved timely mailing of IME and EUO notices and the assignor's repeated nonappearances.
- Searay Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51383(U))The insurer established timely and proper mailing of IME notices and the assignor's failure to appear, warranting summary judgment.
- Dowd v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51160(U))The insurer established timely and proper mailing of IME and EUO notices and the assignor's failure to appear.