[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, February 15, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gabriel & Shapiro LLC, Wantagh (Jason Moroff and Steven F. Palumbo of counsel), for appellant.

Gialleonardo, McDonald & Turchetti, New York City (Kevon Lewis of counsel), for respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

It is undisputed that, during claims processing, plaintiff’s attorney sent defendant a letter requesting that “all other communications relating to this claim” be sent to plaintiff’s attorney. Defendant timely mailed verification and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff but did not send these requests to plaintiff’s attorney. On appeal, plaintiff argues that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), upon sending the follow-up verification request to plaintiff, defendant was required to send plaintiff’s attorney a delay letter. In the alternative, plaintiff contends that, in accordance with the letter received from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant was obligated to send the initial and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff maintains that since defendant failed to do so, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s contention that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), upon sending the follow-up verification request to plaintiff, defendant was required to send plaintiff’s attorney a delay letter lacks merit, as there is no such requirement, where, as here, the party from whom the verification is sought is the plaintiff,{**55 Misc 3d at 93} rather than another person or entity (see GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52195[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]; Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 42, 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]).

To the extent plaintiff contends that, in accordance with the letter received from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant was obligated to send the initial and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff’s counsel, we disagree. Insurers are obligated to comply with the no-fault regulations, which require that both the initial and follow-up verification requests be sent to the party from whom the verification is sought (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]) and, thus, defendant cannot be penalized for sending the verification requests to plaintiff notwithstanding the request from plaintiff’s counsel (cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 588 [2002]). In addition, we note that if plaintiff was confused as to why the requests were sent to it or whether it needed to respond to the requests, “[a]ny confusion on the part of the plaintiff . . . should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction” (Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 555 [1999]).

In light of the foregoing, we find no basis to disturb the order of the District Court.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, November 25, 2016

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Office of Thomas Tona, P.C., St. James (Alison Berdnik of counsel), for respondent.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator’s award is granted.

After the provider’s claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits had been denied by the insurer due to the assignor’s failure to appear at duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), the provider submitted the claim to arbitration, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b). The IME scheduling letters that had been sent to the assignor stated that he would be reimbursed for any proven loss of earnings and reasonable transportation expenses incurred in complying with the IME request.^[FN*] The arbitrator determined that the IME scheduling letters were defective because they called for “proven” loss of earnings and did not track the language of the regulation, and found that, as a result, proper notice was not effectuated. The arbitrator awarded the provider the principal sum of $520.20. The insurer appealed the adverse decision to a master arbitrator, who vacated the arbitrator’s award in favor of the provider, upon a determination that the award “was not supported by sufficient evidence and was irrational, arbitrary and capricious and incorrect as a matter of law,” thereby, in effect, finding for the insurer.

{**54 Misc 3d at 33}The provider then commenced this proceeding to vacate the master arbitrator’s award, contending that the master arbitrator had exceeded his power, within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), because he had performed an independent review of the evidence, assessed its [*2]credibility and made his own factual determinations. The insurer, by cross petition, sought to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. By order dated April 22, 2015, from which the insurer appeals, the District Court granted the provider’s petition and denied so much of the insurer’s cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, finding that the master arbitrator had exceeded his authority by reviewing factual issues which had already been decided by the arbitrator and had impermissibly substituted his own factual determination for that of the arbitrator. We reverse.

Judicial review of a master arbitrator’s authority to vacate an award under Insurance Law § 5106 derives from CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) and involves the question of whether the master arbitrator has exceeded his or her power (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 210 [1981]; see also Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 231 [1982]). A master arbitrator is empowered to vacate an arbitration award based upon most grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d at 210; see also 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [a] [1]) or based upon the ground that the arbitration award “was incorrect as a matter of law (procedural or factual errors committed in the arbitration below are not encompassed within this ground)” (11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [a] [4]; see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d at 231; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d at 211). The power of a master arbitrator to review factual and procedural issues (unlike substantive law issues) is limited to “whether the arbitrator acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or without a plausible basis” (Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d at 211). A master arbitrator “exceeds his statutory power by making his own factual determination, by reviewing factual and procedural errors committed during the course of the arbitration, by weighing the evidence, or by resolving issues such as the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d 724, 725 [1994]; see also Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]). If, however, the master arbitrator vacates the arbitrator’s award based upon an alleged error of a rule of{**54 Misc 3d at 34} substantive law, the determination of the master arbitrator must be upheld unless it is irrational (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d at 232; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Spine Americare Med., 294 AD2d 574, 576 [2002]).

Contrary to the provider’s contention, we find that the master arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority, as he did not weigh or independently evaluate issues of credibility or engage in any factual analysis. Rather, his legal analysis of the arbitrator’s determination was well within the scope of his authority to review and correct an error of law made by the arbitrator (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d at 231; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d at 211). Moreover, “applying the law to a given set of facts is well within the province of a master arbitrator, even if his conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator” (Martinez v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 146 AD2d 610, 611 [1989]). Here, the master arbitrator determined that the use of the word “proven” in the IME scheduling letters did not render such letters ineffective, notwithstanding the fact that the word “proven” does not appear in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e), and that proper notice of the scheduled IMEs was, therefore, effectuated. As the master arbitrator’s determination was not irrational (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d at 232), the District Court erred in granting the provider’s petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and in denying the insurer’s cross petition to confirm the master arbitrator’s award.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator’s award is granted.

We incidentally note that a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is a special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 4, and must terminate in a judgment rather than an order (see CPLR 411).

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote *:11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) provides: “The insurer shall inform the applicant at the time the examination is scheduled that the applicant will be reimbursed for any loss of earnings and reasonable transportation expenses incurred in complying with the request.”

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, December 18, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore (Mark A. Green of counsel), for appellant. Rossillo & Licata, P.C., Westbury (John J. Rossillo of counsel), for respondent.

{**38 Misc 3d at 42} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, we find that the District Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had not demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Statewide Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 130[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51863[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

A plaintiff seeking to recover for no-fault benefits must submit proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, i.e., that health care services or supplies were provided and the amount thereof (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; King’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 55 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). In this case, plaintiff submitted an NF-5, UB-04 and DRG master output report in support of its motion for summary judgment. However, in order for such documents to constitute prima facie proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, plaintiff would have had to demonstrate that such documents were admissible, pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a), as proof of the acts, transactions, occurrences and/or events recorded therein (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 21 [App{**38 Misc 3d at 43} Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see generally Matter of Carothers v GEICO Indem. Co., 79 AD3d 864 [2010]; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]). Plaintiff failed to do so.

Plaintiff’s argument that hospitals should not be held to the same standards of proof as other healthcare providers, because hospitals are required to use a different claim form (an NF-4 or NF-5 rather than an NF-3), is without merit. The NF-3 (verification of treatment by [*2]attending physician or other provider of health service), NF-4 (verification of hospital treatment) and NF-5 (hospital facility form) are all prescribed by the no-fault regulations (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] Appendix 13), and one is not inherently more reliable than the others. The fact that a certain form was used to submit a claim to an insurer is irrelevant to the question of whether the health care provider demonstrated to the court that it is entitled to recover no-fault benefits.

We recognize that CPLR 4518 (b) allows hospital records to be used as prima facie proof of the facts contained in those records. However, CPLR 4518 (b) does not apply to “any action instituted by or on behalf of a hospital to recover payment . . . for services rendered by or in such hospital.” Even assuming, without deciding, that a hospital’s records could be used by the plaintiff hospital in an assigned first-party no-fault case, pursuant to CPLR 4518 (b), under the theory that the hospital is suing as the assignee of a patient seeking to recover benefits from an insurance company, and not on its own behalf, such documents must, in any event, “bear[ ] a certification by the head of the hospital or by a responsible employee in the controller’s or accounting office that the bill is correct, that each of the items was necessarily supplied and that the amount charged is reasonable.” No such certification was provided here, nor did plaintiff submit an affidavit of a hospital employee attesting to the truth of any of the contents of the records submitted by plaintiff. Instead, the only sworn statements submitted by plaintiff were made by plaintiff’s attorney and by an employee of a third-party billing company, neither of whom claimed any knowledge as to the truth of the contents of the records.

Finally, we note that the cases cited by plaintiff (e.g. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 532 [2006]), for the proposition that hospitals are not required to submit proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained to the court in order to demonstrate their entitlement to no-fault{**38 Misc 3d at 44} benefits, do not impact our decision in this case. In those cases, there is no indication that the defendants had ever objected to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing on the ground that those plaintiffs had failed to submit such proof. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that any appellate court in New York has been presented with the question of whether a plaintiff hospital is required to offer proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained in order to recover no-fault benefits in court and, upon considering that question, held that the hospital is not required to offer such proof. The Appellate Division has specifically held, twice, that a health care provider has not demonstrated its entitlement to recover no-fault benefits after finding that the provider’s claim forms were inadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a) (see Matter of Carothers, 79 AD3d 864; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C., 55 AD3d 644), and plaintiff has not provided a compelling reason to distinguish the instant case from those cases.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

We decline defendant’s request to search the record and award it summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Molia, J.P., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.