July 21, 2005

S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/s-i-a-med-supply-inc-v-geico-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51170u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 21, 2005
Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 51170(U)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Distinguished in 1 and followed in 2 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 51170(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005)

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 provider's claims for 11 assignors were severed because they presented few common issues and a joint trial risked confusion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order denying the insurer's motion under CPLR 603 and directed a separate action for each assignor's claim. The claims allegedly arose from separate accidents, although the record did not establish whether the second through eleventh causes of action involved five or ten accidents. The insurer disputed the necessity and reasonableness of the supplies and the sufficiency of the claim forms. Those claim-specific questions supported severance even if the policies were identical, following Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

Reported in New York Official Reports at S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U))

[*1]

S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U)

Decided on July 21, 2005

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: July 21, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-1561 Q C

S.I.A. Medical Supply Inc., a/a/o DAPHNEE EYMA, MARGARITA MELAMED, JULIA MOURA VIEVA, THERESE GONZALEZ, MAUREEN GONZALEZ, ILYA VAYNSHTOK, ALEX NARODITSKY, GENNADIY PEREVOZKIN, YEVGENIAYA PEREVOZKINA, LIDIA KIZYUN, ANNA KRAMAREVA, Respondent,
against
GEICO Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (D. Pineda-Kirwan), entered April 28, 2004, denying its motion to sever the claim of each assignor into a separate action.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into a separate action granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits as assignee of 11 eligible injured persons. The claims allegedly arose out of separate accidents involving different assignors. Defendant moved to sever the assigned claims in the complaint into separate actions pursuant to CPLR 603, which motion the court below denied by order entered April 28, 2004. We note that although this case involves 11 different assignors, the appellate record is not clear as to whether the second through eleventh causes of action involve 5 or 10 separate accidents.

In light of the recent trend in cases involving severance of large numbers of assigned claims which, if tried together, would be unwieldy and would create a substantial risk of confusing the trier of fact, we find that the particular facts herein relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of law or fact, even if the assignors’ insurance policies are identical (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [*2][2004]). Defendant’s answer clearly places at issue, inter alia, the necessity and reasonableness of the rendered medical supplies [*3]
and the sufficiency of the no-fault forms that have been submitted (see Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 6 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50238[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).
Decision Date: July 21, 2005

Cited in this decision

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

Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07960) FollowedThe provider's 68 assigned claims were properly severed because individual issues predominated and a joint trial risked confusion.
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U)) FollowedMVAIC's motion to sever claims arising from three separate accidents was granted because few common issues were likely.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Annette Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27377) DistinguishedThe insurer failed to justify severing one provider's claims involving two unrelated assignors and accidents.
King’s Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U)) FollowedSeverance of five no-fault claims was upheld because separate accidents and peer reviews presented few common factual or legal issues.
Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50997(U)) FollowedThe insurer's answer supplied a basis to sever five assignors' claims arising from separate accidents without a prejudice affidavit.
Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27034)The insurer's severance motion was granted because a single trial of claims from separate accidents risked confusion.
Ocean Diagnostics Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50913(U))The provider's claims from 11 separate accidents were properly severed because the defenses raised few common issues of law or fact.
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U))Severance under CPLR 603 is discretionary and ordinarily stands on appeal absent prejudice to a substantial right.

Similar decisions

RJA Physical Therapy, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52047(U))The insurer's severance motion was warranted because claims involving seven assignors and six accidents raised few common issues of law or fact.
Westchester Radiology & Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Cas. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51703(U))The insurer was entitled to sever six assignors' claims arising from separate accidents and denied for lack of medical necessity.
Sunshine Imaging Assn./WNY MRI v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 06984)The insurer's medical-necessity denials raised a triable issue, and severance was proper for claims arising from 14 unrelated accidents.
Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))Severance of no-fault claims may rest solely on allegations in the answer without a showing of prejudice.
Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51704(U))The insurer's severance motion was granted because the four assignors' claims arose from separate accidents with few common factual issues.