November 16, 2018
Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51656(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/restoration-chiropractic-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51656u/
- Decided
- November 16, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 51656(U) · 61 Misc 3d 144(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Proof of mailing · 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 Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51656(U))
| Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 51656(U) [61 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
| Decided on November 16, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-2055 K C
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Maryana Feigen of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered May 24, 2016. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not considered because they are raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018
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.
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
Held the insurer's proof sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters.
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.
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, contrary to the provider's contention, that the insurer's proof established proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters, upholding dismissal on the no-show defense.
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.
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.
Similar decisions
- Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51325(U))The insurer established proper mailing of IME scheduling letters and denial forms, as well as the assignor's nonappearance.
- AVM Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51354(U))The insurer established proper mailing of its denial forms and the assignor's failure to appear for EUOs. The provider appealed from an order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing its action for assigned no-fault benefits on the EUO nonappearance defense.
- Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51761(U))The provider's challenge to ineffective delay letters did not defeat the insurer's summary judgment motion based on EUO nonappearance.
- ACH Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50782(U))The insurer established that the provider's assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing the provider's action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits and denying the provider's cross motion.
- BCc Chiropractic, P.C. v Farmers New Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50680(U))The insurer established timely EUO notices, the assignor's nonappearance on both scheduled dates, and a timely denial on that ground.