June 28, 2012

Yklik, Inc. v Electric Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51287(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/yklik-inc-v-electric-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-51287u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: June 28, 2012
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 51287(U) · 36 Misc 3d 131(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Medical necessity
Legal questions: Lack of medical necessity (see the maps)

Cite as

Yklik, Inc. v Electric Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 131(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 51287(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012)

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 provider failed to rebut peer review reports establishing that the medical supplies lacked medical necessity. In the action for assigned no-fault benefits, The Civil Court, Kings County, found that both parties had established their prima facie cases and left medical necessity as the sole trial issue. The insurer's affirmed peer review reports supplied factual bases and medical rationales for the respective doctors' conclusions. The provider's opposing doctor's affirmation failed to meaningfully address or rebut those conclusions. The provider did not challenge the finding that the insurer was otherwise entitled to judgment. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Yklik, Inc. v Electric Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51287(U))

[*1]

Yklik, Inc. v Electric Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51287(U) [36 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on June 28, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2012

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2009-1566 K C.

Yklik, Inc. as Assignee of TREVARE WHITE, Respondent, —
against
Electric Insurance Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 14, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, 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. The Civil Court found that plaintiff and defendant had established their prima facie cases and that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies provided to plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the respective doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided. In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a doctor, which failed to [*2]meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see 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]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A.
Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 28, 2012

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.

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 established lack of medical necessity and the provider failed to rebut it

Held the insurer entitled to summary judgment because its affirmed peer reviews set forth a factual basis and medical rationale and the provider's doctor's affirmation failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, them.

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, 315 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)) FollowedThe provider's conclusory disagreement with the insurer's supported peer review failed to raise a medical-necessity issue of fact.
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.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52455(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.
A Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51342(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the provider's MRIs lacked medical necessity.

Cited by

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Right Choice Supply, Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 23039)A no-fault arbitrator need not apply summary judgment rules requiring a provider's medical evidence to specifically rebut an insurer's peer review.

Similar decisions

Yklik, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51336(U))The provider's doctor's affirmation failed to meaningfully address or rebut the insurer's peer reviews finding medical supplies unnecessary.
SI Med. & Surgical Supply, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50054(U))The insurer's peer reviews established lack of medical necessity for the supplies, and the provider did not rebut that showing.
Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50414(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review reports established lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue.
B & Y Surgical Supplies, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51255(U))The insurer's unrebutted peer review established that the supplies lacked medical necessity and warranted summary judgment.
New Life Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51061(U))The provider's practitioner failed to meaningfully rebut two peer review reports establishing lack of medical necessity.