May 29, 2014
SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sp-chiropractic-p-c-v-ids-prop-cas-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op50952u/
- Decided
- May 29, 2014
- Citation
- 2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U) · 44 Misc 3d 126(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Issues
- EUO 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 SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U))
| SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 50952(U) [44 Misc 3d 126(A)] |
| Decided on May 29, 2014 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-575 K C
against
IDS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered November 15, 2011. The order denied defendant’s 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on plaintiff’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.
Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 29, 2014
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 failed to prove the nonappearance by someone with personal knowledge
Held the insurer's summary judgment motion properly denied because it offered no proof from anyone with personal knowledge that the provider failed to appear for the EUOs.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 79 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50458(U)) FollowedAn insurer must prove a provider's EUO nonappearance through admissible evidence from a person with knowledge of the facts.
- Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51123(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove the provider's EUO nonappearance through someone with personal knowledge.
Cited by
- Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.c. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. (2014 NY Slip Op 51858(U))The insurer failed to prove the provider's EUO nonappearances through someone with personal knowledge.
Similar decisions
- Kings County Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51446(U))The insurer failed to prove the provider's EUO nonappearance through someone with personal knowledge.
- Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51665(U))The insurer failed to establish a proper EUO nonappearance denial because its first EUO notice was mailed about 50 days after claim receipt.
- Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51552(U))An insurer need not set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearances.
- Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50311(U))The insurer failed to prove timely mailing of the initial and follow-up EUO letters, defeating summary judgment on nonappearance.
- Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50700(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance.