May 22, 2013

Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50901(U))

Headnote

The court considered the issue of whether the defendant, Geico Ins. Co., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. as Assignee of Delmy-Carolina Castro to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had timely denied the claims on the basis of a lack of medical necessity and submitted two affirmed peer review reports in support of this determination. The court held that as the defendant's showing that the services were not medically necessary was not rebutted by the plaintiff, the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Therefore, the court found in favor of the defendant and reversed the lower court's decision, granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50901(U))

Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50901(U)) [*1]
Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.
2013 NY Slip Op 50901(U) [39 Misc 3d 147(A)]
Decided on May 22, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 22, 2013

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


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
.
Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. as Assignee of DELMY-CAROLINA CASTRO, Respondent, —

against

Geico Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), dated February 15, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 so much an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant’s cross motion papers established that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue (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]) based on a lack of medical necessity. In addition, defendant submitted two affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and a medical rationale for the determination that there was no medical necessity for the services at issue. As defendant’s showing that the services were not medically necessary was not rebutted by plaintiff, defendant’s cross motion should have been 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]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal lack merit (see Quality Health Prods. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52299[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 127[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52284[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). [*2]

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 22, 2013