• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
June 6, 2016

White Plains Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/white-plains-med-care-p-c-v-praetorian-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50913u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
June 6, 2016
Citation
2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U) · 52 Misc 3d 127(A)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
IME no-show
Cite as
White Plains Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 127(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016)

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 summary judgment motion based on the assignors' failure to appear for duly scheduled IMEs was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2013-2143 K C.

Reported in New York Official Reports at White Plains Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U))

[*1]
White Plains Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.
2016 NY Slip Op 50913(U) [52 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on June 6, 2016
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2016

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-1847 K C
White Plains Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of CARL THOMAS, TIFFANY ROSE, ORLANDO MARRIOTT and STEPHANIE ROLDAN, Respondent,

against

Praetorian Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 21, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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 it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on the failure of plaintiff’s assignors to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff’s assignors had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

For the reasons stated in Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Rose Sherlock v Praetorian Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-2143 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: June 06, 2016

Similar decisions

  • Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50924(U))The insurer's affidavits established that the assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs. The provider sued to recover assigned no-fault benefits, and the Civil Court denied the insurer's summary judgment motion while limiting the trial issue under CPLR 3212 (g) to the assignor's nonappearance.
  • Cortland Med. Supply, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50394(U))The insurer established the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs and timely mailing of the requests and denials.
  • Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52062(U))An assignor's appearance at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
  • Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51679(U))The insurer proved IME nonappearance on six claims and rebutted the presumption of receipt of the remaining claim.
  • All About Rehabilitation & P.T., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51815(U))An assignor's appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability under the policy.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.