September 23, 2022
SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50927(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/svp-med-supply-inc-v-geico-2022-ny-slip-op-50927u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- September 23, 2022
- Citation
- 2022 NY Slip Op 50927(U) · 76 Misc 3d 134(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer 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 SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50927(U))
[*1]| SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 50927(U) [76 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on September 23, 2022 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 23, 2022
PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ
2020-93 K C
against
GEICO, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered September 18, 2019. The order granted 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, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Parisien v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 75 Misc 3d 138[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50581[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; Sanford Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 75 Misc 3d 138[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50576[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51518[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and BUGGS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 23, 2022
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 proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Upheld dismissal because the insurer's proof sufficed to establish the provider's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs.
Of the 837 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 518 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604)An insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
- Sanford Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50576(U))The insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearances despite a challenge to proof of presence at the start times.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51518(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
Similar decisions
- SVP Med Supply, Inc. (B) v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50585(U))The insurer's submissions established timely mailing of EUO notices and denials and the provider's failure to appear for scheduled EUOs. An affidavit described the insurer's standard office practices and procedures for mailing the scheduling letters and denial forms.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51161(U))An insurer need not supply objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51773(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for EUO requests to establish summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.
- NL Quality Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51367(U))The insurer proved the provider's EUO nonappearance and timely mailing of scheduling letters and denials, and the provider failed to rebut nonappearance.
- Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52070(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied and the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint for EUO nonappearance was granted.