December 23, 2009

Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52633(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/staten-is-advanced-surgical-supply-v-geico-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op52633u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 23, 2009
Citation: 2009 NY Slip Op 52633(U) · 26 Misc 3d 128(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity Timeliness and preclusion Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity · Claimant's prima facie case on motions · Proof of mailing (see the maps)

Cite as

Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 128(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52633(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009)

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 insurer's timely denial and supported peer review raised a triable issue as to the medical necessity of the supplied equipment. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the provider's judgment, vacated the order granting summary judgment, and denied the provider's motion. The insurer conceded receipt of the claim, and the billing manager's affidavit established admissibility of the provider's documents under CPLR 4518. The insurer nevertheless proved timely mailing of its verification request and denial through an employee's knowledge of standard office mailing procedures. Its affirmed peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the equipment unnecessary. The court declined the insurer's request to search the record and grant it summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52633(U))

[*1]

Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 52633(U) [26 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on December 23, 2009

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 23, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2008-2037 Q C.

Staten Island Advanced Surgical Supply as assignee of Xiao Min Huang, Respondent,
against
GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 9, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 5, 2008 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 9, 2008 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $575.30.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant argued, in opposition to a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment,
that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case and that defendant had timely denied plaintiff’s bill on the ground of lack of medical necessity. The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and defendant appealed. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment which was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Since the affidavit of defendant’s claims representative conceded receipt of the claim in question (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51281[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]) and the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager established that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]), plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment was established.

In opposition to the motion, defendant established that it had timely mailed its request for verification and subsequent denial of claim form, which denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity, by submitting an affidavit of an employee with knowledge of defendant’s standard office practices or procedures designed to ensure that items were properly [*2]addressed and mailed (see e.g. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also annexed a copy of the affirmed peer review report setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that the equipment provided was not medically necessary (see e.g. 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]; Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51412[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). As a result, defendant raised a triable issue of fact and, thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

We decline defendant’s request that we search the record and grant defendant summary judgment (see e.g. New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832 [2007]).

Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 23, 2009

Legal questions (3)

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.

Lack of medical necessity

Open the full map

Did the insurer’s proof establish lack of medical necessity, and did the provider’s evidence rebut it?

This decision: Insurer's proof was enough to defeat the provider's motion but not to win

Held the insurer's affirmed peer review report, setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale that the equipment was unnecessary, raised a triable issue, but declined to search the record for the insurer.

Unrebutted, insurer prevailsProvider's rebuttal sufficientInsurer raised triable issueInsurer's proof insufficientTrial error, new trialThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 617 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the provider established its prima facie case because the insurer's claims representative conceded receipt and the billing manager's affidavit made the annexed documents admissible under CPLR 4518.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,063 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 511 (this one included) are in the same category.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

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 (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the insurer established timely mailing of its verification request and denial through an affidavit of an employee with knowledge of its standard office mailing practices.

Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51281(U)) FollowedThe insurer's late denials did not bar its coverage defense, and its evidence raised a triable issue of a staged incident.
Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26496) FollowedA provider's deficient proof of claim submission may be cured by an insurer's denial form submitted in opposition to summary judgment.
Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846) FollowedThe providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U))The insurer's examining physician supplied an unrebutted factual basis and medical rationale that the billed MRI was unnecessary.
Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51412(U))The insurer's peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale sufficient to raise a triable issue of medical necessity.
New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 03671)An insurer need not set forth a medical rationale in a denial form when the denial rests on a medical examination or peer review report.

Similar decisions

Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51771(U))The insurer's timely denial and affirmed peer review raised a triable issue of medical necessity for the supplied equipment.
Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51737(U))The insurer's timely denial and supported peer review raised a triable issue of medical necessity, defeating provider summary judgment.
Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52316(U))The insurer's peer reviews established lack of medical necessity, and the provider failed to justify delaying summary judgment for discovery.
Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52284(U))The peer review report was admissible because its facsimile signature was placed by the reviewing doctor or at the doctor's direction.
Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50445(U))The insurer raised triable issues concerning an MRI's medical necessity and whether it had already paid the provider's other claim.