March 2, 2011
Tri-Mount Acupuncture, P.C. v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50335(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tri-mount-acupuncture-p-c-v-n-y-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op50335u/
- Decided
- March 2, 2011
- Citation
- 2011 NY Slip Op 50335(U) · 30 Misc 3d 144
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 Tri-Mount Acupuncture, P.C. v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50335(U))
| Tri-Mount Acupuncture, P.C. v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 50335(U) [30 Misc 3d 144] |
| Decided on March 2, 2011 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-2523 Q C.
against
NY Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 29, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 16, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 29, 2009 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,335.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, the order entered October 29, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
In support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee of Crossland Medical Services, P.C. (Crossland), the entity which scheduled the IMEs involved herein on behalf of defendant. The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been mailed in accordance with Crossland’s standard office practices and procedures (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 [*2]Jud Dists 2007]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim forms, which had denied the claims based upon the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for the IMEs, had been timely mailed pursuant to defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Defendant also submitted affirmations from its examining physicians and affidavits from its examining chiropractors, who stated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. As a result, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Inasmuch as plaintiff submitted only a reply affirmation from its counsel, which affirmation failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered October 29, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 02, 2011
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.
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
Held the insurer made its prima facie no-show showing through the scheduler's mailing affidavit and the examiners' statements of nonappearance, and counsel's reply affirmation raised no triable issue.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Granted the insurer summary judgment on its IME no-show defense after finding, among its elements, that the denials based on the nonappearance were timely mailed.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (this one included) are in the same category.
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 office-practice affidavits sufficient to establish mailing of the IME scheduling letters and timely mailing of the denial of claim forms.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
Similar decisions
- Neomy Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52279(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of the IME notices and denials and the assignor's failure to appear.
- NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51263(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on the assignor's IME nonappearance was granted on appeal.
- Jamhil Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51644(U))The insurer established timely mailing of IME notices and a denial based on the assignor's failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. The president of the independent medical review service retained to schedule the examinations established timely mailing of the scheduling letters.
- Brooklyn Hgts. Physical Therapy, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52406(U))The insurer established the assignor's IME nonappearance and defeated the provider's challenge to the duplicate denial requirement.
- Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51870(U))The insurer established timely IME scheduling, the assignor's nonappearance and timely denials, warranting dismissal of the claims.