Legal Questions

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

A decision decides this question when it rules whether the claimant suing for no-fault benefits (usually a provider-assignee, sometimes the injured person) made out its prima facie case. The ruling is made before trial: usually on the claimant's motion or cross motion for summary judgment or a CPLR 3212 (g) application, sometimes on another pretrial motion, or in an Article 75 or default/vacatur ruling that happens to decide the claimant's showing. Rulings at or after trial belong to the topic prima-facie-trial. Under Viviane Etienne (Ct App 2015), the claimant must show that the statutory claim form was mailed to and received by the insurer and that payment is overdue, meaning it was not paid or denied within 30 days. The claimant does not have to prove the merits of the claim. Deciding the question means holding that the claimant's proof on these elements was sufficient or insufficient, or holding that an extra element is or is not required, such as a business-records foundation for the claim forms or proof of medical necessity.

Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals settled the elements in Viviane Etienne Med. Care v Country-Wide (2015). The claimant must show that payment is overdue and that its claim, on the statutory billing form, was mailed to and received by the insurer, with the mailing proved by admissible evidence. The claimant does not have to prove the merits or lay a business-records foundation for the truth of the claim forms. Every department had stated the billing/receipt/overdue formulation before 2015 (the Court of Appeals cites 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th Department decisions). The only real conflict came within the Second Department. From about 2006 to 2013, the Appellate Term (Dan Med.) and then the Appellate Division (Art of Healing, 2008; Carothers, 2010) required a CPLR 4518 foundation for the claim forms. The Second Department overruled Art of Healing in Viviane Etienne (2013), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Since then, decisions differ in application, not rule. The largest group is Second Department Appellate Term decisions holding the provider's proof insufficient on the overdue element: the provider did not show the claim was not timely denied, or that a timely denial was conclusory, vague or without merit (Westchester v Nationwide, 2010; Ave T, 2011).

Leading authorities · Authority map · Decisions by court · Plain-text version (Markdown)

Leading authorities

  • Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 04787) Court of Appeals, 2015Statewide rule: mailing and receipt of claim, plus payment overdueA provider establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by admissible proof that its statutory claim form was mailed to and received by the insurer and that payment is overdue (not paid or denied within 30 days); it need not prove the merits. The biller's affidavit describing his own mailing practice met that burden.
    We hold that a plaintiff demonstrates prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that payment of no-fault benefits are overdue, and proof of its claim, using the statutory billing form, was mailed to and received by the defendant insurer.
  • Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 08430) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2013Proof of billing suffices; overrules Art of Healing business-records requirementA provider's prima facie case is proof that the billing forms were mailed and received and not paid or denied within 30 days; it need not lay a business-records foundation for the truth of the claim forms or prove the merits (Art of Healing overruled to that extent). The one claim the record showed was timely denied failed the prima facie burden.
    We reaffirm the long-standing precedent that, in this context, the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, in admissible form, that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay or deny the claim within the prescribed 30-day period.
    Later history: Affirmed, Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 (2015) (post 5664)
  • Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 02359) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004Standard formulation: billing forms mailed and received, payment overdueThe hospitals made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received and that payment was overdue; the insurer's opposition did not raise an issue of fact about a timely partial denial or payment.
    Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff hospitals made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2010No prima facie case where insurer timely paid/denied in partThe provider failed to establish its prima facie entitlement because the evidence showed the insurer made a partial payment and a partial denial within 30 days of receipt; the denial was not invalidated by a minor factual discrepancy and was not conclusory, vague or without merit.
    Here, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for benefits since the evidence demonstrates that the defendant made a partial payment and a partial denial of the claim within 30 days after receipt thereof
  • Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011Provider must negate timely denial or show it was legally insufficientA provider must prove submission of the claim form, the fact and amount of the loss, and either that the insurer failed to pay or deny within 30 days or that its timely denial was conclusory, vague or without merit; proof of nonpayment alone was insufficient.
    Here, while plaintiff demonstrated that the claims were not paid, it failed to demonstrate either that defendant had failed to deny the claim or that defendant had issued a legally insufficient denial of claim form.
  • Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co. (2003 NY Slip Op 51701(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2003Properly completed claim form makes out prima facie case; no medical-necessity proofA provider's proof of a properly completed claim form makes out its prima facie case on summary judgment; it need not separately prove medical necessity, particularly where the insurer is precluded by an ineffective denial.
    Thus, we reaffirm our holding that a provider’s proof of a properly-completed claim makes out a prima facie case upon its motion for summary judgment
  • Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co. 90 NY2d 274Preclusion rule for untimely denials; source of the overdue/preclusion reasoning relied on by Viviane Etienne and its pre-2015 Appellate Division line.Not in our database.
  • Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray 46 NY2d 828Presumption of receipt from proof of a standard office mailing practice; applied in Viviane Etienne to the provider's billing affidavit.Not in our database.
  • Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. 286 AD2d 679Presumption of mailing by actual mailing or standard office practice. This is the test for the submission element (e.g. NY & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate, 2006, post 9834).Not in our database.
  • Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. 68 NY2d 320; 64 NY2d 851General summary judgment burden: failure of the prima facie showing requires denial regardless of the opposition. Courts cite these when denying providers' motions. Winegrad is 1985.Not in our database.

Authority map

Each circle is a decision on this question, placed by court and date; its colour is the position it took. Lines are citations between them. Select a circle (or find a decision by name) to see its links and summary. The same decisions are listed by court below the map.

Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie caseInsufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was submitted (mailed to and received by the insurer)Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)Insufficient: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not provedInsufficient for another reason (eligibility, timely submission, own papers defeat the claim)Ring: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited
Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Decisions (1,038)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 671 turn on it; the others rule on it alongside a different main ground (marked "also decides"). The one-sentence summaries describe what each court said on this question.

How this page is made: the decisions are those in our case-law database that cite this question's leading cases or were tagged with its subject. A language model read each one in full and recorded whether it rules on the question, the position it took and a one-sentence summary; a second, independent reading checked every entry. Court, department, date and the citation links come from the database. Read the decision before relying on it.