Civ Ct, Richmond County

Index No.: 21379/07

Counsel for Defendant:

Gina M. DiGaudio, Esq.

GULLO & ASSOCIATES, LLP

520 86TH Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-238-9555

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joaquin J. Lopez, Esq.

BAKER, SANDERS, BARSHAY, GROSSMAN, FASS, MUHLSTOCK & NEUWIRTH

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

Plaintiff Administrative Assets (“plaintiff” or “Assets”), a medical service provider, commenced this action, pursuant to the No-Fault Law, to recover payments from defendant Zurich American Transit Insurance Company (“defendant” or “Zurich”) for services plaintiff rendered to its assignor Frank Saccente (“assignor” or “Saccente”) as a result of the injuries that he sustained in an automobile accident.

Defendant moves to dismiss the action on the ground that the assignor is entitled to Workers Compensation because the assignor was an employee who was injured on the job while working, thus granting the Workers Compensation Board (“Board”) primary jurisdiction over issues of coverage. In support of its motion, defendant presented the affidavit of its no fault specialist – Mr. Herbert – who, in a conclusory fashion, described how defendant ” obtained documents from the Workers’ Compensation Board which revealed that the assignor was injured in the course of employment.” Specifically, attached to his affidavit is an “Employer’s Report of Work-Related

Accident”(“Employer’s Report”) filled out by a third party – the assignor’s employer.

Plaintiff asserts that a no-fault insurer asserting a defense that workers compensation is primary must establish, as a threshold matter, that the claimant was employed at the time of the underlying motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to submit any admissible evidence on this point that the claims specialist’s affidavit is insufficient to lay a foundation to admit a hearsay document (the Employer’s Report) into evidence. Specifically, under Dan Medical P.C. v. NY Central Mutual Fire, Ins.,14 Misc 3d 44 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006), the claims specialist failed to demonstrate that he possessed sufficient personal knowledge of defendant’s business offices practices and procedures so as to lay the foundation for the [*2]admission of the assignor’s Employer’s Report.

The Court finds that the Employer’s Report is inadmissable, since defendant has failed to lay a foundation establishing that this Report, which was prepared by a third party – the assignor’s employer – is a business record of defendant. As such, the information contained in the report is inadmissable hearsay.

In the leading case of People v. Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 (1986), the Court addressed several issues relating to the hearsay exception to business records contained in CPLR 4518(a). This provision provides that “[t]he term business includes a business, profession, occupation and calling of every kind.” The business records exception “grew out of considerations of necessity and trustworthiness – the necessity for alternatives to permit large and small business to prove debts by their records of account, and the unusual degree of trustworthiness and reliability of such records owing to the fact that they were kept regularly, systematically, routinely and contemporaneously.” Id at 579 citing 5 Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 1421-22, 1546. “The essence of the business records exception …is that records systematically made for the conduct of a business …are inherently highly trustworthy because they are routine reflections of day-to-day operations and because the entrant’s obligation is to have them truthful and accurate for purposes of the conduct of the enterprise.” 68 NY2d at 579.

The foundation requirements of CPLR 4518, which incorporate these common law precepts,

mandate that the proponent establish that the writing was made in the regular course of business, i.e. that the writing reflects a routine, regularly conducted business activity; that it was the regular course of business to make the writing; and that the writing was made at or about the time of the transaction; and that the writing was made at or about the time of the transaction.” Id at 580. See, Lenox Hill Radiology P.C. (Sardar) v. American Transit Ins CO., 2008 NY Slip Op. 50330U, 18 Misc 3d 1136A (Civil Ct., NY Co. 2008). In Aram Barbikian v. Nikki Midtown LLC, 60 AD3d 470, 471-72 (1st Dept. 2009), for example, the court held that the bookkeeper’s affidavit did not lay the foundation

necessary for the admissibility of purported employment records and a computer printout submitted to show where the employees were on the date of the attack. The bookkeeper did not state that she was in charge of employment or employment records or otherwise have firsthand knowledge of the plaintiff.

Similarly, here, the affidavit of John Herbert does not specify defendant’s regular business procedures for obtaining information regarding an assignor’s employment status vis a vis workers compensation, and defendant clearly does not have personal knowledge much less any knowledge as to how the third party – the assignor’s employer – filled out the Employer’s [*3]Report or submitted it to the Workers Compensation Board. The affidavit is silent as to whether either it was either defendant’s or the third party employer’s business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted.

As such, the third party report may not be considered in this summary judgment motion and the defendant therefore cannot show, in its papers that there is potential merit’ to its claim that [the assignor] was employed at the time of the accident so as to trigger a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Lenox Hill Radiology, supra citing A.B. Medical Serv. PLLC v. American Transit Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 127A, 801 NYS2d 776 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2005 ). In light of the inadmissibility of this record, this court finds that defendant has not submitted sufficient evidence that the assignor was employed at the time of the accident, that workers compensation is primary, and that the issue of coverage must first be presented to the Workers Compensation Board. See, Arvatz v.v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 268 (1st Dept. 1991); Lenox Hill Radiology, supra .

As defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, this case shall proceed to trial.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:October 1, 2009

Staten Island, NYHON. KATHERINE A. LEVINE

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by _______ on ____________

A P P E A R A N C E S

Counsel for Defendant:

Gina M. DiGaudio, Esq.

GULLO & ASSOCIATES, LLP

520 86TH Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-238-9555

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joaquin J. Lopez, Esq.

BAKER, SANDERS, BARSHAY, GROSSMAN, FASS, MUHLSTOCK & NEUWIRTH

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

08R000954

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment raises anew whether the recent Court of Appeals decision in Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. V. Travelers Indemnity Co., 10 NY3d 556 (2008) requires an insurer to deny a claim on the grounds that the assignor was involved in an accident while on the job and that workers compensation is hence primary within 30 days, or whether that defense is not subject to the preclusion rule.

Plaintiff Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C. A/A/O (“Lenox Radiology”

or “plaintiff”), a medical service provider, brought this action seeking reimbursement in the amount of $878.67 for medical services it provided to its assignor Zulfiqar Ahmad (“assignor or “Ahmad”) stemming from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 19, 2007. Plaintiff timely submitted its bill to defendant Global Liberty Insurance Co. (“defendant” or “Global”) which is a “licensed insurance carrier for vehicles for hire” (affidavit of Dwight Geddes -“Geddes affidavit” ). Global received the claim on November 2, 2007, and denied and mailed the claim on November 28, 2007 on the grounds of lack of medical necessity based upon a performed peer review report. ^[FN1] The denial did not list as a grounds lack of coverage based upon workers compensation being primary. [*2]

Defendant moved for summary of judgment on the grounds that there is no coverage since it “has reason to believe” that the assignor was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that therefore, workers compensation is primary and the assignor is not entitled to no -fault benefits. It further contends that the Workers Compensation Board (“Board”) is vested with the responsibility of resolving questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact and that the Board hence has”primary and exclusive jurisdiction” to resolve questions of coverage. Thus, a no -fault insurer is only obligated to pay no-fault benefits if the workers compensation carrier denies liability for benefits. From these propositions, defendant argues that “there is no coverage” from an insurance company for no – fault benefits until the Board makes a determination that there is no workers compensation coverage and that hence, defendant’s time in which to issue a denial does not even commence until the Board makes its determination.

Plaintiff cross moved for summary judgment on the ground that the defense that a “claimant is eligible for workers compensation” is not a coverage defense but rather a “statutory offset” which must be contained in a timely denial. Plaintiff contends that there are only four “coverage defenses” that are not subject to preclusion even if not raised in a timely denial and that the instant defense is not included in this group. Since defendant did not preserve this defense by issuing a timely denial, plaintiff contends it is entitled to partial summary judgment.

In response, defendant contends that if in fact the Board were to determine that the assignor was not working at the time of the accident but rather was using the vehicle for personal reasons, this would be in violation of his policy of insurance or “contract” with Global and would constitute a “material misrepresentation” by the insured so as to warrant a forfeiture of his rights under the policy. Defendant further contends that “misrepresentation by an insured and a material breach of the contract of insurance result in the vitiation of coverage.”

To grant summary judgment, “it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980). A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing form has been mailed and received, and that payment of no -fault benefits was overdue.” Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins.,, 5 AD3d 742, 743 (2d Dept. 2004); Second Medical v. Auto

One Ins., 20 Misc 3d 291, 293 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008).

The burden then shifts to the defendant in a no fault case to show a triable issue of fact. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). To defeat an award of summary judgment to plaintiff, defendant must provide proof, in evidentiary form, that it either paid or denied the claim within 30 days of receipt or that it asserts a non- precludable defense. Carle Place Chiropractic v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 51065U; 19 Misc 3d 1139A (Dist. Ct. Nass. Co. 2008). District supra at 8. See Central General Hospital v. Chubb Insurance Co, 90 NY2d 195 (1997); Presbyterian Hosp. City of NY v. Maryland Casualty Co., 90 NY2d 274 (1997). [*3]

In Fair Price Medical v. Travelers Ins., 10 NY3d 556 (2008), the Court of Appeals clarified when an insurance company would not be precluded from offering a defense to its refusal to pay no – fault benefits even though it denied the claims beyond the 30 day period. There, Travelers issued its denial nearly two years after receiving the claim, based upon the assignor’s statement that he had never received medical supplies from the plaintiff. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant was not precluded by the 30 day rule since it had asserted fraud as a defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s reversal of the lower court’s order denying plaintiff summary judgment on the grounds that :

in this case, unlike a staged accident case, there was an actual automobile accident, which

caused Nivelo to sustain actual injuries, for which he was treated by actual health care providers, who issued actual prescriptions for medical supplies to treat his injuries. Nivelo’s undisputably real accident had resulting injuries triggered with the coverage provided for in his insurance policy with the defendant” Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. V. Travelers Indem. Co. 42 AD3d 277, 284 (2d Dept. 2007) affg 9 Misc 3d 76 (App. Term 2d and 11th Jud. Dist 2005).

In sum, the Appellate Division concluded that while Travelers could contest the assignor’s claim as fraudulent, it must do so within the tight deadlines imposed by the no -fault system. 42 AD3d at 286.

The Court of Appeals affirmed . It first cited to its recent review of the legal framework behind the No – Fault Law in Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins., 9 NY3d 312, 317 (2007); namely that the no fault insurance system was designed to ensure “prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence,” to reduce the burden on the courts, and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists. ” Citing to its prior decision in Central General Hospital, supra, the Court cautioned that there was only one “narrow” exception to the preclusion rule for those situations where an insurance company raises the defense of lack of coverage. 9 NY3d at 318 . The Court explained that in such cases “an insurer who fails to issue a timely disclaimer is not prohibited from later raising the defense because the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the

first instance, and requiring payment of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed. Fair Price, 10 NY3d at at 563 citing Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 318. See, e.g. Tahir v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 657, 662 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2006) (“staged accident fraud” actually posed an issue of non coverage as opposed to fraud because under no -fault concepts, insurance coverage is limited to an “accident”).

Thus, the “key issue” in every case is whether the “facts fit within the narrow no-coverage exception to the preclusion rule” 10 NY3d at 564. A court, in determining whether a specific defense is precluded under the 30 day rule or falls within the exception entails a judgment as to whether the defense is more like a “normal exception ” from coverage such as a policy exclusion or a lack of coverage in the first instance, i.e. a defense “implicating a coverage matter.” 10 NY3d at 565. [*4]

In Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 (2d Dept. 2009), the Second Department found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact solely based on the hearsay statement of its investigator, as to whether the accident was covered by Workers Compensation benefits. The court then added that “defendant’s possible entitlement to offset any no-fault benefits it pays by any recovery pursuant to a workers compensation claim does not constitute a defense of lack of coverage, which is not subject to the requirement that there be a timely service of the disclaimer” Id at 1046 citing Fair Price supra.,

The Second Department decision in Westchester, supra, despite its brevity, controls the instant matter. Furthermore, as set forth above, the Second Department has previously enunciated its position on the preclusion rule in Fair Price, supra wherein it declared that as long as there was an actual automobile accident, which caused the assignor to sustain actual injuries for which he was treated by an actual health care provider, the case would not fall within the narrow exception to the preclusion rule. Defendant does not contend otherwise but merely argues that workers compensation is “primary” and that there is no coverage for no fault benefits until and unless a workers compensation board makes a determination that the assignor is not covered by workers compensation at which point the no – fault insurer is obligated to pay first party benefits.

Defendant cannot escape this rule by now claiming that there was “fraud ” or “misrepresentation” by as the assignor in obtaining the policy. Defendant fails to allege the type of fraud which will warrant the suspension of the preclusion. This distinction was aptly drawn in

Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs. P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 50639U, 19 Misc 3d 1111A, 862 N.Y.S.2d 813 (NY Sup. Ct. 2008) wherein the court stated that “(t)he defense of fraud based upon “staged accidents” or intentional collisions are considered defenses premised on lack of coverage, and have been found not subject to the rigorous 30-day rule because there was, in fact, no “accident.” See, Mtr. of Allstate Ins. Co v Massre, 14 AD3d 610 (2nd Dept. 2005); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490 (2nd Dept. 2003); Metro Medical Diagnostics, P.C. v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 (2nd Dept. 2002). On the other hand, cases involving fraudulent billing or excessive treatment are considered claims of “provider fraud” and can be precluded by the 30-day rule. Carnegie Hill, supra at 4 . See, Careplus Medical Supply Inc v State-Wide Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 29 (App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2005); MGM Psychiatry Care PC v Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 137(A), 824 N.Y.S.2d 763,(App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2006).

The Carnegie court noted that the ” key distinction is that in the first circumstance the insurance carrier demonstrated that an issue existed as to whether there was any coverage at all, whereas in the second the courts were presented with an exclusion under the policy, which does not mean that there was no contractual obligation in the first instance. In the latter, the 30-day rule still applies”. Id at 4 citing Fair Price Supply Corp., supra at 42 AD3d 277.

In fact, in Fair Price, supra, the Second Department specifically stated that the exception [*5]to the preclusion rule was carved out specifically where an insurer failed to timely pay or deny fraudulent claims that arise out of staged automobile accidents. 42 AD3d at 283. The rationale for such a holding was that “a deliberate collision that is caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is simply not an “accident” covered by the subject insurance policy.” Id. To that end, no matter how “egregious” the alleged fraud was in the case before it ( medical supply company’s claim was fraudulent as medical supplies were never delivered), it was not related to the existence of coverage in the first instance. Id. at 284.

Nor does the fraudulent misrepresentation raised by defendant herein fall into the category of fraudulent incorporation A defendant is not precluded from raising its defense that plaintiff may be fraudulently incorporated since it is ” possibly” owned by both a physician and non physician, the latter of which is prohibited by both the Business Incorporation Law, the No – fault regulations and the seminal case of State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. V. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005).^[FN2]

In Eastern Medical P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 775 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2008), the court rejected Allstate’s contention that Fair Price had reshaped the analysis of fraud based defenses so as to make a Mallela fraudulent incorporation defense untimely if not made within the 30 day denial period. See, Manhattan Medical Imaging, P,C, v, State Farm Auto Ins,., 2008 NY Slip Op. 51844 (U), 20 Misc 3d 1144 (A) (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2008). The court found that the Mallela defense was not predicated upon a policy exclusion or the extent of coverage provided by a contract of insurance but rather upon a statutory defense arising from a claimant’s failure to comply with applicable sections of the Business Corporation, Limited Liability and Education Laws. Id at 779-780. Hence, the challenged regulation in Mallela did not create a new category of exclusion but rather was “a condition precedent with which all claimants must comply in order to receive benefits.” Id at 780 citing 4 NY3d at 321 n.3. Therefore, Fair Price did not

alter, much less address prior precedent that a fraudulent incorporation defense “is a non- waivable defense .and is therefore not subject to the 30-day preclusion rule” ( Midwood Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto, 14 Misc 3d 131A, 2007 N.Y Slip Op 50052 U

( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007). Id at 781. Nor was such a defense waived by the failure to assert it in a denial of claim form. Multiquest v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 37, 39 ( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007).

Since the instant defendant’s claim of fraud does not fall into the category of fraud in pursuance of a staged accident or fraudulent incorporation, it does not fall within the exception to [*6]the preclusion. Having failed to raise the defense that claimant is eligible for workers compensation or that workers compensation is primary in a timely denial, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment. However, since defendant timely mailed its denial based on lack of medical necessity and annexes a sufficient peer review report in support of its denial, this matter will proceed to trial on the issue of medical necessity.

In sum, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted solely with respect to the defense of workers compensation.

DATED: July 6, 2009

KATHERINE A. LEVINE

JUDGE, CIVIL COURT

ASNbyon

Footnotes

Footnote 1:The court finds that the defendant established that it generated and then mailed out a timely denial based on lack of medical necessity on November 28, 2007 in accordance with its well established procedures and through the personal knowledge of the mail clerk at Global.

Footnote 2:This defense is typically referred to as the “Malella defense” or “fraudulent incorporation” defense.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 30, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Barry & Associates, L.L.C., Plainview, for defendant.[*2] Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff.

{**25 Misc 3d at 244} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

{**25 Misc 3d at 245}This case calls the court to reconcile the seeming anomaly between precedent and the insurance regulations as to what repercussions attach to an insurance carrier’s failure to adhere to the time limits for requesting follow-up verification in no-fault insurance cases. Since the regulations only address the repercussion that attaches to an insurer’s late submission of an additional verification request,^[FN1] and the tenets of statutory construction mandate that different parts of one statute are to be construed together, this court concludes that an insurance carrier should not be subject to greater penalties for submitting a late follow-up verification request than for submitting a late additional verification request.

Plaintiff Pine Hollow Medical, P.C., a medical service provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) to recover $699.34 for services it provided to its assignor Jonathan Aurelien, for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant Global Liberty Insurance moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s lawsuit was premature since plaintiff failed to comply with defendant’s verification requests. Plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s assertion that it never provided the requested information, but asserts that defendant’s follow-up verification request was late because it was made on the 11th day after 30 days had already transpired since defendant’s first request for verification, in violation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b).

Aurelien was allegedly injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment at Pine Hollow on March 23, 2006. Global sent a verification request to plaintiff’s attorney for a [*3]letter of medical necessity from the referring physician on April 6, 2006. Having received no response, defendant mailed a second verification request dated May 17, 2006, requesting the same letter of medical necessity. It appears that defendant was thus one day late in requesting the follow-up verification.

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim or it will be precluded from offering any defenses at trial. (Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889, 890 [2d Dept 2007]; see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997].) An insurer may toll the 30-day period by properly{**25 Misc 3d at 246} requesting additional verification^[FN2] within 15 days from the receipt of the no-fault insurance claim forms (NF-3 or claim form). (Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b].^[FN3]) If the “requested verification[ ] has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]).^[FN4] If the insurer does not receive the verification request after its follow-up request is sent, its time to pay or deny the claim is tolled pending submission of the requested information. “A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2d Dept 2004]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 554 [2d Dept 1999]). The insurer must pay or deny the claim within 30 days after it receives verification of all relevant information it requested pursuant to its original request for additional information (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1];^[FN5] Westchester County Med. Ctr. at 554).

In Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431, 432 [2d Dept 1996]) the court found that the follow-up requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (e) (2) (the predecessor to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]), must be “strictly[*4] construed” so that “when an insurance company has not received ‘verification’ within 30 days after requesting it, [the insurer] must, within the ensuing 10 days, ‘follow up’ with a second request, documenting the second request in the file and notifying the applicant or the applicant’s attorney.” In Presbyterian (supra) the insurer, after not receiving{**25 Misc 3d at 247} a response to its request for additional verification, failed to make any follow-up request and merely waited three months until it received the requested records after which it issued a denial. The Second Department found that the 30-day period within which the carrier should have paid or denied the claim had run ” ‘even before verification [was] obtained’, due to the carrier’s ‘lack of diligence in obtaining the verification’ ” (233 AD2d at 433, quoting Keith v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 118 AD2d 151, 154 [2d Dept 1986]).

There have been divergent opinions on whether the defendant insurance company must wait until 30 days have expired before sending out the follow-up verification request. In Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC (5 Misc 3d at 724-725), the court found that the regulations do not mandate that the insurer wait 30 days before sending a follow-up request since the time frame of 30 days was a limit to the amount of time an insurer may wait before sending a follow-up request. This expeditious handling of the verification follow up was consistent with the case law and the goals of the No-Fault Law.^[FN6] In Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (19 Misc 3d 1138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51063[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008]), this court adopted the reasoning of Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc. (supra) and held that defendant is allowed to send a follow-up verification request on the 30th day after the original request for verification.

Based upon the aforementioned precedent, it would appear that since defendant was one day outside the 10-day window period in which it had to mail its follow-up verification request, defendant could not take advantage of the tolling period and hence could not argue that the instant lawsuit was premature. However, unlike the arguments presented in the aforementioned cases, defendant here raises the somewhat novel argument that even if its follow-up verification request was untimely, “such untimeliness is not fatal but would merely reduce the number of days it has to either pay or deny the claim.” Specifically, defendant argues that since it was only one day late in mailing its{**25 Misc 3d at 248} follow-up verification request, the 30-day time period it had to pay or deny the claim would still begin to run after it received all of the requested verification but would be reduced by one day to 29 days. Defendant does not cite any authority for this proposition. [*5]

11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) states that “[f]or the purposes of counting the 30 calendar days after proof of claim, wherein the claim becomes overdue . . . , with the exception of section 65-3.6 of this subpart, any deviation from the rules set out in this section shall reduce the 30 calendar days allowed.” Section 65-3.6 (b), as set forth above, governs the follow-up requirements for verification requests if any verification has not been supplied to the insurer pursuant to the additional request.

There appears to be no higher court analysis of what the phrase “with the exception of section 65-3.6” means within the context of ascertaining what repercussions, if any, attach to an insurer’s late submission of a follow-up verification. However, in Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (262 AD2d 553 [1999]), the Second Department found that under the old regulations, a follow-up letter that was sent beyond the 10-day window period was timely and that the insured was entitled to the tolling of the 30 days as contained in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g). Since the plaintiff never responded to the follow-up verification letter, the 30-day period in which defendant had to pay or deny the claim never commenced and defendant’s denial of the claim was not untimely.

There, the defendant received the claim on April 28, 1997, and made a timely demand for additional verification on May 1. Having not received verification within 30 days, the defendant then made a “timely demand” for follow-up verification on June 13. (262 AD2d at 555.) The defendant thereupon denied the claim on June 19. In its brief before the Second Department, the defendant insurer argued that even assuming June 13^[FN7] was the date it mailed the follow-up request, its denial was still timely on the grounds that the regulations (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [10]) only addressed the repercussions if the initial{**25 Misc 3d at 249} (additional) verification request was not timely sent, and then did not require preclusion of the defense but only a reduction of the 30-day period in which the insurer had to pay or deny the claim, after receiving the verification material, by the amount of the delay. Without commenting on defendant’s reasoning, the Second Department found that defendant had submitted a timely follow-up request.

Subsequently, in Liberty Queens Med. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. (188 Misc 2d 835 [Nassau Dist Ct 2001]), the court dealt directly with the apparent inconsistency between the Appellate Division precedent that the verification requirements must be strictly complied with [*6]and the regulatory language which provided for an extension of time in which a defendant insurer had to pay or deny a claim based upon outstanding verification pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (2) and (g) (1) (under the new regulations—11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b] and 65-3.8 [j]). There, the defendant insurer made the additional verification request 11 days after receiving the claim and hence was one day late in making the request pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (2).

The plaintiff argued that because the request for additional verification was untimely, the defendant insurer waived its right to extend the 30-day period and therefore was required to make a determination on the claim within 30 days of the initial submission, citing Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431 [1996]). The Liberty court first distinguished the matter before it from Presbyterian where the court was not required by the facts before it to focus on the “specific issue presented here,” i.e., the tolling provision of section 65.15 (g) (10). (188 Misc 2d at 839.) Therefore, the “broad general language” utilized by the Presbyterian court should not be construed as determinative of how the court should rule upon a one-day delay in complying with the specific regulation before it. (Id.)

Addressing the insured’s “one-day deviation” from the requirement that it send its additional verification request within 10 days, the court found that the purpose of the No-Fault Law—”avoiding prejudice to insureds by providing for prompt payment or disclaimers of claims”—was sufficiently served by “truncating the presumptive 30-day period which the insurer itself would otherwise have to eventually review the proof submitted” as set forth in 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (10). (Liberty at 840.) To impose the “draconian result” requested by plaintiff for a “one-day deviation” from the promulgated standards{**25 Misc 3d at 250} would deprive the insurer entirely of its right to obtain and review the needed proof and would “contravene rather than implement the statutory intent.” (Id.)

Based upon the two aforementioned precedents, it is clear that defendant should not be deprived entirely of the opportunity to review and obtain the needed proof by dint of its one-day tardiness in submitting its follow-up request. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) only addresses the repercussions of an insurer’s failure to request the additional verification within the set time lines, since it expressly excludes section 65-3.6, which discusses follow-up verification requests, and then sets forth that any deviation from the time frame shall reduce the 30 calendar days allowed in which to pay or deny the claim. As such, the regulations do not even contain a punitive provision for an insurer who does not make a follow-up verification request within the 10-day period.

“A statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 97; Frank v Meadowlakes Dev. Corp., 6 NY3d 687, 691 [2006]) and construed so as to harmonize [*7]with one another (Anglin v Anglin, 80 NY2d 553, 558 [1992]). In the interpretative context, a court “must read the entire law and accord respect to the interlocking and interrelated features of all its parts.” (Anglin at 558.) Furthermore, even apparently conflicting provisions of a statute must be reconciled in a manner most consistent with the overall legislative intent. (Statutes § 98; Schulman v Group Health Inc., 39 AD3d 223 [1st Dept 2007].) Finally, the common mandate of statutory construction is to assume that the Legislature “did not intend a patently absurd result.” (Covington v Walker, 307 AD2d 908, 909 [2d Dept 2003]; see Statutes § 145; In re Adamo, 619 F2d 216, 219 [2d Cir 1980].)

It would be patently absurd and contravene the meaning of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) to impose a more draconian punishment on an insurer who is one day late in requesting follow-up verification than on an insurer who is one day late in requesting additional verification. Since in the latter situation, the only repercussion to the insurer’s tardiness is the diminution in the time it has to issue a denial or pay the claim, it begs all credulity to impose the more drastic remedy of precluding the insurer from even issuing a denial because of its tardiness in requesting follow-up verification. If anything, the aforementioned regulation{**25 Misc 3d at 251} imposes no repercussion upon the insurer who is tardy in requesting follow up.

Since defendant has yet to receive any response to its verification requests, its 30-day period in which to deny or pay the claim has not yet commenced and the instant action is premature. In light of the above, it is not necessary for this court to determine whether the defendant’s time to deny or pay the claim, once it does receive the requested information, is diminished by one day.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is dismissed.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: As will be explained below, an additional verification request precedes a follow-up verification request under the no-fault insurance regulations.

Footnote 2: The additional verification request is to be distinguished from the initial verification forms (including the claim form or NF-3) which must be forwarded by the insurer to the parties required to complete them within 10 days of receipt of the completed application for no-fault benefits (NF-2).

Footnote 3: This opinion will also cite to the analogous provisions under the old no-fault regulations (old regulations) which were effective through December 31, 2002, since many of the operative cases were brought under the old regulations. The analogous provision to section 65-3.5 (b) under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (d) (1), which provided that an insurer shall request additional verification within 10 days of receiving the prescribed verification forms.

Footnote 4: The analogous provision under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (e) (2).

Footnote 5: The analogous provision under the old regulations is 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (1).

Footnote 6: However, in Sea Side Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (12 Misc 3d 1127 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2006]), Judge Sweeney found that the clear language of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) required the insurer to “follow up with the plaintiff for the verification at least once in the 10-day period specified therein” (id. at 1131). By sending the follow-up verification request only 28 days after the first verification request had been mailed, defendant failed to mail the follow-up request within the 10 days and “the toll occasioned by defendant’s initial requests for verification dissipated ab initio” (id.).

Footnote 7: (See reply brief for defendant-appellant in Westchester, available at 1999 WL 34593237 [briefs and other related documents].) In their briefs, the parties differed as to when the insurer sent the follow-up verification request; the plaintiff contended that it was sent on June 13 while the defendant insurer argued it was sent on June 3. The Appellate Division adopted June 13 as the date that the follow-up verification request was sent and this court will presume that the Appellate Division, after considering all the evidence, properly ascertained the operative date.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

21817/07

Attorney’s for Defendant:

Gullo & Associates

520 86th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

Attorney’s for Plaintiff:

Phillips, Krantz & Levi, LLP

14 Avenue T

Brooklyn, New York 11223

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case calls into question what precisely a peer review report, submitted by an insurance company in support of its denial for lack of medical necessity, must contain in order to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and/or to grant a defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As will be explained below, while a peer review report may be sufficient to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment it may not be sufficient to warrant granting of summary judgment to the defendant insurer, even when the plaintiff does not submit evidence to rebut the report. This dichotomy, in the context of no-fault insurance, has not been definitively clarified by the higher courts.

Plaintiff Millennium Radiology, P.C, (“plaintiff” or “Millennium”) commenced this action to recover from defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“defendant” or “NY Central”), the sum of $1,791.71 for the two MRIs it performed upon its assignor, Adrine Grant (“Grant” or “assignor”). In support of its application for summary judgment, plaintiff contends that the defendant has not submitted competent medical evidence to support its denial of the claim for lack of medical necessity.

Defendant opposed plaintiff’s application and cross-moved for summary judgment on the [*2]grounds that the services provided by plaintiff were not medically necessary. In support of its denial, defendant submitted a copy of a peer review prepared by its chiropractor Albert Claps, D.C. who concluded that there was no justification for the MRIs performed upon the assignor because the referring provider failed to indicate whether the assignor was experiencing “an improvement or degradation with regard to her causally related symptoms” and because the doctor failed to reveal why the MRIs were ordered or how the outcomes of these tests would assist in the treatment of the assignor.

During oral argument, defendant maintained that the complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to submit any medical evidence to rebut the peer review report. Plaintiff responded that it was under no duty to offer any evidence in rebuttal and that the conclusion of defendant’s expert regarding the medical necessity of the MRIs created an issue of fact which must be determined at trial.

A plaintiff makes a prima facie case “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received and that payment of no-fault benefits were was overdue.” A.B. Medical Services, v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780 (2d Dept. 2007). See, Ins. Law, §5106(a); 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c); Nyack Hospital v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Co., 16 AD3d 564 (2d Dept. 2005); Mary Immaculate Hospital v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742– 43 (2d Dept. 2004). It is clear that plaintiff has established its prima facie case. The affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager exhaustively details the record keeping procedures of the business, and clearly sets forth the procedures for the creation and retention of bills, of which she has personal knowledge. See Manhattan Medical v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, 2008 NY Slip Op. 51844(U), 20 Misc 3d 1144(A)(Civil Ct., Richmond Co.2008) citing Second Medical v. Auto One Ins., 20 Misc 3d 291, 294-95 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008). The affidavit further details that the bills at issue were made and kept in the ordinary course of business at the time the services were rendered and sets forth the precise mailing procedure that was followed. Moreover, the billing manager personally mailed the bill and forms.

A presumption of medical necessity attaches to a defendant’s admission of the plaintiff’s timely submission of proper claim forms, and the burden then switches to the defendant to demonstrate the lack of medical necessity. Acupuncture Prime Care, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., 2007 NY Slip Op. 52273U, 2007 NY Misc. LEXIS 7860 (Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 12/3/2007); A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 1018(A), 801 NYS2d 229 (Civil Ct. Kings. Co. 2005); Citywide Social Work & Psychological Services v. Travelers Indemnity, 3 Misc 3d 608, 609 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004). Defendant thus bears “both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion with respect to the medical necessity of the treatment or testing for which payment is sought.” See, Bajaj v. Progressive Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 1202(A) (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. 2006). Thus, once a plaintiff has proven its prima facie case, the defendant must prove that the test was not medically necessary. Nir. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 7 Misc 3d 544, 546 (Civil Ct, Kings Co. 2005). A defendant may raise a triable issue of fact by submitting a denial of claim form stating that the claim is being denied based on a medical examination or peer review report requested by the insurer. The insurer need not set forth the medical rationale in its denial of claim form. Rather, the insurer need only submit a copy of that report to the applicant or its attorney upon written request. A.B. Medical Services, PLLC v GEICO, 39 AD3d 778, 779 ( 2d Dept. 2007); A B. Medical Services v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 ( 2d Dept. 2007). See, 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(b)(4).

Summary judgment is a “drastic and harsh” remedy and “should be used sparingly.” Utica National Ins. Group v. Providian Medical Services, P.C.,2008 N.Y Slip. Op.52610U, 22 Misc 3d 1107A ( Sup. Ct., Queens Co., 2008). See Epstein v. Scally, 99 AD2d 713, 714 (1st Dept. 1984 ). Summary judgment cannot be resolved by conflicting affidavits. Epstein v. Scally, [*3]supra . To grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear, on the papers alone, ” that no material and triable issue of fact is presented”. Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980); Utica Nat’l Ins. Group, supra . The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding rather than issue determination. Precision Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., v. Travelers Insurance Co., 8 Misc 3d 435, 436 ( Civil Ct., N.Y Co. 2005), citing Brown v Achy, 9 AD3d 30, 33 n 2 (1st Dept. 2004). Once such proof has been offered, in order for the opposing party to defeat the motion for summary judgment, it must “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” Inwood Hills Medical P.C. v. Bronx Neurodiagnostics P.C., 3 Misc 3d 1110A, 787 NYS2d 678 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2004) quoting CLR 3212 (b). See, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986).

To defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the report must be in admissible form; i.e. signed and sworn to. See, Radiology Today v. GEICO, 20 Misc 3d 70

(App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 (App. Term, 2 & 11th Jud. Dists. 2004). Some courts have also held that in additional to being in admissible form, the peer review report or medical examination must raise a triable issue of fact for lack of medical necessity by setting forth “a sufficiently detailed factual basis and medical rationale for the claim’s rejection.” Nir, supra at 546 citing Amaze Medical Supply v. Eagle Ins., 2 Misc 3d 134A, 2004 NY Slip Op. 51701U (App. Term, 2d and 11th Jud. Dists. 2003). Cross bridge Diagnostic Radiology, PC v. Progressive Ins. Co. 2008 NY Slip Op 51761U , 20 Misc 3d 143A (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); Delta Diagnostic v. Chubb Insurance Co., 17 Misc 3d 16 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007). The quantum of evidence presented in the peer review report need not rise to the level of evidence presented at trial through the peer review doctor to substantiate the peer review report’s conclusion as to lack of medical necessity. Nir, supra at 546-547.

Plaintiff errs in contending that its motion should be granted since the peer review report does not contain competent medical evidence to support a finding of medical necessity, as a party cannot establish its entitlement to judgment “merely by pointing to gaps in the opponent’ s proof.” Falah v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 41 AD3d 638 (2d Dept. 2007). Furthermore, the peer review report is in admissible form and contains a sufficient rationale so as to create an issue of fact concerning medical necessity. While somewhat bare bones, the report does in artfully state that the MRI studies appear to be medically unnecessary because the referring doctor does not indicate whether the claimant experienced improvement or degradation with regard to her causally related symptoms, and there was no indication from the referring doctor why the MRIs were ordered or how the anticipated outcome of the tests would assist with the management of the assignor’s case.

However, while a peer review report may be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff, at trial, the peer review report must be supported by testimony regarding the “generally accepted medical/professional practice. “Nir, supra at 547 citing CityWide Social Work & Psychological Servs. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 3 Misc 3d 608, 612 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004). Generally accepted practice “is that range of practice that the profession will follow in the diagnosis and treatment of patients in light of the standards and values that define its calling. CityWide, supra at 616. As this court held in H.M. Parekh v. Allstate Ins. Co., Index No. 2041/07, Civil Ct, Richmond County, 3/04/08, at trial a defendant must show by medical evidence “that the treatment or services would be ineffective or that the insurer’s preferred health care treatment or lack of treatment would lead to an equally good outcome.” H.M. Parekh v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra , citing Fifth Ave. Pain Control Center v. Allstate Ins. Co., 196 Misc 2d 801, 807-08 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. 2003).

The instant peer review report, standing alone, does not rise to this standard and does not establish, as a matter of law, that the services rendered were not medically necessary. As such, this court finds the contents of the report to be insufficient to warrant the granting of defendant’s cross motion, even though the plaintiff failed to submit evidence to rebut the peer review.

Defendant cites a plethora of Appellate Term cases for the proposition that once the defendant insurer rebuts the inference that the services are not medically necessary, the plaintiff must refute this inference in order to create a triable issue of fact. The court first notes that the Appellate Term at times has not ruled that defendant must be awarded summary judgment unless plaintiff refutes the evidence offered by defendant, but only that “such proof may entitled the insurer to summary judgment.” Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 2 Misc 3d 128A, 787 NYS2d 919 (App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists 2004). See A.B. Medical Servs.v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins., 3 Misc 3d 136A, 787 NYS2d 675 (App. Term 9 & 10th Jud. Dists. 2004)(“summary judgment may, in appropriate circumstances, be awarded to the defendant unless the plaintiff comes forward with admissible proof in reply to create a triable issue of fact). The Appellate Division has not addressed this dichotomy.

Since the report does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact so as to warrant judgment to defendant (See, e.g.,. Delta Diagnostic v. Chubb, 17 Misc 3d 16, 18 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2007), this case will proceed to trial.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 30, 2009______________________Honorable Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, April 3, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Phillips, Krantz & Levi, Brooklyn, for plaintiff. Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, for defendant.

{**24 Misc 3d at 543} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case presents the novel issue of whether an insurance company must notify prospective medical service providers that it will not reimburse them for any services they may provide to an assignor after a determination has been made, pursuant to an independent medical examination (IME) performed on the assignor, that further medical services are not medically necessary. As will be set forth below, since the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, do not apply to IMEs that are noticed and performed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim IMEs), such notification is not necessary.

Plaintiff Bayside Rehab & Physical Therapy, P.C. (plaintiff or Bayside or assignee), a medical service provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) seeking to recover $814.19 and $1,131.47 for services it provided to its assignors Aleisha Allen and Angela Allen (collectively referred to as the Allens or assignors), for injuries they sustained in an automobile accident. Bayside moves for summary judgment based upon a claimed prima facie showing that its bills were properly submitted and that the defendant GEICO Insurance Company (defendant or GEICO) failed to pay or deny the claims within 30 days.

Defendant claims that plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to provide adequate proof that its claims were generated or mailed within the regular course of business. In the alternative, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to submit several claims within the statutorily prescribed period of 45 days as prescribed by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. In its reply papers, plaintiff contends that since the defendant did not notify it about the IME cutoff, it was “not fair” and “not proper” for defendant to issue a denial of claims based upon the IME cutoff. Defendant responded, during oral argument, that because it informed the assignors that no more benefits would be paid as a result of the IME, the assignors were under an obligation to inform any future medical providers of this determination of lack of medical necessity. In light of the [*2]above, defendant contends that the matter should proceed to trial.

The Allens were involved in an automobile accident on June 17, 2006. Pursuant to a request by defendant, the assignors{**24 Misc 3d at 544} underwent IMEs by three different doctors on November 2, 2006. The three doctors determined that no further orthopedic, chiropractic, acupuncture or other types of medical services were medically necessary for the injuries suffered by either Allen related to the accident. Defendant GEICO thereupon terminated all benefits for the various types of medical treatment indicated in the IME reports, effective November 9, 2006. Absent from defendant’s papers is any indication as to how or if defendant notified the assignors of the termination of benefits much less notification of the IME cutoff to plaintiff.

Plaintiff subsequently provided medical services to both assignors in the spring of 2007 and submitted two bills on behalf of Aleisha on May 17, 2007 and June 12, 2007, respectively and three bills on behalf of Angela on May 17, June 6 and June 19, 2007, respectively. Defendant denied the May 17, 2007 bills based on plaintiff’s noncompliance with the 45-day rule and denied all the bills based on lack of medical necessity pursuant to the IME cutoff date of November 9, 2006.

To grant summary judgment, “it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented.” (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 314 [2004, Smith, J., concurring]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51844[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008].) A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms ha[ve] been mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits [i]s overdue.” (Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2d Dept 2004]; Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 291, 293 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008].)

To lay a proper evidentiary foundation on a summary judgment motion that the tendered records were produced within the regular course of a medical provider’s business, plaintiff must provide a supporting affidavit by an individual who possesses personal knowledge of the office practices. (Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996, 999 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2007], citing CPLR 4518 [a]; North Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52523[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44, 45 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006].) Plaintiff meets this burden by{**24 Misc 3d at 545} providing an affidavit of its business manager who exhaustively details the record-keeping procedures of the business that created the records and clearly details the dates of the services, the amounts due, and her personal knowledge of the billing practices. (Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra, citing Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d at 294-295.) In addition, the billing manager personally packaged, sealed, applied postage to and mailed the bills. As such, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of entitlement. [*3]

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to submit several bills within the statutorily required period of 45 days as prescribed by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106, a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits. All automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002 are required to include a revised mandatory personal injury protection endorsement which provides that claims for medical treatment must be submitted within 45 days after services are rendered. (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [b]; 65-2.4 [c]; Rockman v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1118[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52093[U], *4 n 2 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008], citing Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 298 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 2002]; Eagle Chiropractic, P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50525[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].) Where one proof of claim is submitted for several medical treatments, the 45-day period commences the day after the first treatment is rendered. (SZ Med. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 52, 55 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006], citing Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-06-30 [June 2003].)

Although a health care provider is required to submit its proof of claim within 45 days after the services were rendered, an insurer is precluded from asserting the defense of a provider’s untimely submission of claim if it does not issue a timely denial of claim. (Rockman v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., supra, citing Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 12 Misc 3d 147[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51579[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006].) Pursuant to both the Insurance Law and the regulations promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies the proof of claim. (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997], citing Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [g] [3].){**24 Misc 3d at 546}

Here, plaintiff submitted claims on May 17, 2007 for services provided on March 9, 12, 16, 20 and 28, 2007, which is more than 45 days after each service was provided. Furthermore, since defendant timely denied these claims on May 30, 2007, within 30 days of their receipt, defendant is entitled to assert its defense that the claims were untimely submitted.

As to plaintiff’s contention that the denial based upon the IME cutoff was somehow unfair or defective since defendant assignee never notified plaintiff about the IME cutoff based on lack of medical necessity, an analysis of precedent on what if any notification requirements attach to preclaim IMEs is in order. This issue was recently addressed by this court in Prime Psychological Servs., P.C. v Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (24 Misc 3d 230, 2009 NY Slip Op 29100 [2009]) wherein the court found that the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, do not apply to examinations under oath (EUOs) that are noticed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim EUOs). The same reasoning applies to preclaim IMEs.

The insurance regulations provide for IMEs and EUOs as part of an insurer’s “entitlement to ‘additional verification’ following the insurer’s receipt of a provider’s statutory claim forms.” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18, 19 [App Term, 2d [*4]Dept 2004], affd in part 35 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2006]; see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]; 65-3.5 [d]; see also All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008]; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C., 8 Misc 3d 1014[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; Inwood Hill Med. v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 1110[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50565[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2004].) Where an EUO or IME is requested as additional verification after receipt of the claim, the insurer must schedule the IME within the same time frame as medical examinations—within 30 days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification form (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d])—and must schedule an EUO within a reasonable time frame and as “expeditiously as possible.” (Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49, 51 [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].)

11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) provides that if the requested postclaim verification

“has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall,{**24 Misc 3d at 547} within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (Emphasis added.)

“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2d Dept 2004]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]).

In addressing whether these requirements applied to preclaim EUO requests, this court looked to Stephen Fogel Psychological (supra), where the Appellate Term found that an insurer had the right to conduct an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form or its statutory equivalent which “under the regulations, triggers the verification process.” (7 Misc 3d at 20-21.) The Stephen Fogel Psychological court then found that the right to an IME “at this juncture is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables” because section 65-1.1 (d) “is not, on its face or contextually, a ‘verification’ provision, and because the detailed and narrowly construed verification protocols are not amenable to application at a stage prior to submission of the claim form.” (Id. at 21.) The only party that needed to be notified of the preclaim IME was the assignor-injured party. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, 35 AD3d at 721.) In All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (20 Misc 3d 554 [2008]), Judge Sweeney extended this reasoning to EUOs, finding that an insurance company acted within its rights under the endorsement by scheduling an EUO before it had received the claim.

Based upon the above, this court, in Prime Psychological Servs. (supra), found that the postclaim notice requirements did not apply to preclaim EUOs, or by analogy to the instant matter, to preclaim IMEs, and that it therefore was of no consequence that neither the insurer’s Special Investigation Unit investigator nor its claims representative mentioned whether the EUO notices were sent to the assignor’s attorney. As such, this court determined that an insurer’s timely denial of a claim, [*5]based upon an insured’s failure to appear for a preclaim EUO, which constitutes a breach of a condition precedent to payment, is a valid ground upon which to award summary judgment to the defendant.{**24 Misc 3d at 548}

The same analysis governs what, if any, notice requirements attach to IME cutoff determinations based upon a lack of medical necessity. Where such a determination is made prior to the submission of a claim, there is no statutory requirement as to whom the insurer has to notify. Even the postverification notice requirements, which are inapplicable to preclaim EUOs and IMEs, do not mandate that the assignee medical provider be notified.^[FN*] 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) discusses where EUOs and IMEs are to be held and then sets forth that “[t]he insurer shall inform the applicant at the time the examination is scheduled that the applicant will be reimbursed.” The term “applicant” within the context of 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) specifically refers to the injured party (the assignor). (East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.,61 AD3d 202, 2009 NY Slip Op 01191 [2d Dept 2009].) 11 NYCRR 65-3.6, entitled “Follow-up requirements,” which was ruled upon in Prime Psychological Servs. (supra), refers to the eligible injured person as the applicant in subdivision (a) where it mandates that insurers mail a second application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits to the “eligible injured person.”

Second, from a purely logical vantage point, it would be an exercise in futility to require an insurance company to send a preclaim IME cutoff notice to the assignee since, by definition, an insurance company cannot prophesize which medical service entity, out of the hundreds which exist in the metropolitan area, an injured party might seek services from. Statutory construction must be sought which is “consistent with achieving [the statute’s] purpose and with justice and common sense.” (Freeman v Kiamesha Concord, 76 Misc 2d 915, 920 [Civ Ct, NY County 1974].) The courts are to adopt a construction of a statute “which will not cause objectionable results, or cause inconvenience . . . or absurdity.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 141, at 281; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 83 NY2d 447, 451-452 [1994].) The common mandate of statutory construction is to assume that the Legislature “did not intend a patently absurd result.” (Covington v Walker, 307 AD2d 908, 909 [2d Dept 2003,{**24 Misc 3d at 549} Feuerstein, J., dissenting]; see Statutes § 145; see In re Adamo, 619 F2d 216, 219 [2d Cir 1980].)

Here, the IME was conducted and the IME cutoff date became effective approximately six months before the Allens even sought treatment from, much less assigned their benefits to, plaintiff. Hence, it would be absurd to require defendant to notify this particular plaintiff provider about the IME cutoff as it had no way of discerning that the Allens might seek [*6]treatment at this provider at some date in the future. Plaintiff implicitly concedes that the Allens were notified of the IME cutoff date by contending that the “IME cut-off was never advised to assignee” and that the “IME exam was kept secret from the assignee” until the denial (reply ¶ 10). Since the Allens attended the IMEs and apparently knew that their no-fault benefits were cut off, they were under an obligation to inform plaintiff and any other medical provider from whom they sought treatment of this cutoff.

In light of the above, and the timely denials submitted by defendants, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and this case will proceed to trial.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Parenthetically, in the one apparent case that discusses this issue, the court held that either the medical service provider or the assignor must be notified about the IME cutoff. (Mollins v GEICO, 15 Misc 3d 1103[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50467[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2007].) This case, however, provides little guidance since the IME and subsequent cutoff date occurred at or about the same time that the services were rendered at the medical service provider.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, March 5, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Epstein McDonald & McCarthy, New York City, for defendant. Baker Sanders Barshay Grossman Fass Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff.

{**24 Misc 3d at 230} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

{**24 Misc 3d at 231}This case presents the novel issue of whether the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, apply to examinations under oath (EUO) that are noticed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim EUO). As will be set forth below, this court decides this issue in the negative.

Plaintiff Prime Psychological, a medical services provider, brought this action seeking reimbursement in the amount of $1,341.14 for medical services it provided to assignor Andrea Ortiz stemming from her automobile accident. Defendant Nationwide Property and Casualty Ins. Co. seeks an order granting it summary judgment based upon Ortiz’s failure to appear for an EUO. Plaintiff opposes the motion and argues that defendant’s notice for an EUO was defective and accordingly failed to toll the statutory 30-day period in which defendant must deny the claim, hence rendering the denial untimely.

Plaintiff treated Ortiz in its medical facility on three occasions from November to December 2006, and on December 14, 2006 mailed Nationwide the consolidated bill, which the defendant received on December 18, 2006. Prior to its receipt of the bill, Nationwide scheduled Ortiz for two EUOs, pursuant to the provision in its insurance policy, both of which Ortiz failed to attend. Defendant submitted an affidavit from an investigator of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) who had personal knowledge of the mailing practices and procedures surrounding EUO scheduling letters and stated that the EUO letters sent to Ortiz were made in the regular course of Nationwide’s business. The SIU investigator stated that he had personal knowledge that defendant mailed Ortiz three letters scheduling EUOs.^[FN*] The first letter was sent to Ortiz via certified mail [*2]on November 30, 2006, advising that her presence was required on December 15, 2006. On December 14, 2006, a voice mail was received from Ortiz’s attorney stating that Ortiz would not be present at the EUO. The next day, the defendant’s investigator spoke with an individual from the office of Ortiz’s attorney and advised him that since his voice mail was received after hours, it would not be counted as an attempt to adjourn. Accordingly, Ortiz’s failure to attend the EUO was counted as a no-show. Nationwide sent another letter to Ortiz on December 15, 2006, scheduling her EUO for January 3, 2007. Ortiz’s attorney called the defendant’s office{**24 Misc 3d at 232} on January 2 and requested an adjournment. Nationwide thus, by letter dated January 2, 2007, scheduled a final adjournment for January 11, 2007, which Ortiz failed to attend. Thus, only the last EUO was scheduled after Nationwide had received the bill.

On January 18, 2007, Nationwide denied the claim on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim was not billed in accordance with the fee schedule and that Ortiz’s failure to attend an EUO constituted a breach of the insurance policy condition that the eligible injured person may reasonably be required to submit to EUOs, which precluded coverage. Nationwide retroactively terminated Ortiz’s coverage, effective October 16, 2006.

To grant a motion for summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented. (Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51844[U] [2008].) In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant is required to establish, prima facie, that (1) its insurance policy in effect when the EUOs were sought contained an endorsement authorizing such verification; (2) the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed; (3) the date and place of EUO were not unreasonable; and (4) assignor failed to appear for the scheduled EUO. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2d Dept 2006]; Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49 [2d Dept 2008].)

Here, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of its prima facie case since it did not notify Ortiz’s attorney about the “follow-up EUO.” While the SIU investigator’s affidavit is silent about any mailings to the applicant’s attorney, the EUO notifications that were sent to Ortiz were cc:ed to her attorney. The issue thus presented is whether the language requiring that an applicant’s attorney be notified of a follow-up verification request applies to a preclaim EUO.

As a condition to coverage under the revised mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, “the eligible injured person . . . shall . . . as may reasonably be required submit to examinations under oath by any person named by the [insurer] and subscribe the same” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d] [Sec I, Conditions, Proof of Claim (b)]). Another condition to coverage under this section sets forth that an eligible person “shall submit to medical examination by physicians selected by, or acceptable to, the [insurer], when, and as often as, the [insurer] may reasonably require.” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d] [Sec I, Conditions, Proof of Claim].){**24 Misc 3d at 233}

11 NYCRR 65-3.5 details the verification procedures to be followed after the insurer receives the completed application for no-fault benefits (NYS form N-F 2). The injured party or that party’s assignee medical services provider must then submit written proof of claim (claim form—usually verification of treatment by attending physician or other health care [*3]provider—NYS form N-F 3) to the insurer within 45 days after the date the medical services are rendered. Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim or it will be precluded from offering any defenses at trial. (Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889-890 [2d Dept 2007]; see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997].)

However, an insurer may toll the 30-day period by properly requesting verification within 15 days from the receipt of the proof of claim form or bill (Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723, 724 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004], citing 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [d] [1]). The insurance regulations provide for an independent medical examination (IME) (and EUOs) as part of an insurer’s “entitlement to ‘additional verification’ ” following receipt of a provider’s statutory claim forms. (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18, 19 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004], affd in part 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]; 65-3.5 [d]; see also All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008]; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C., 8 Misc 3d 1014[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; Inwood Hill Med. P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 1110[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50565[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2004].) Where an EUO or IME is requested as additional verification after receipt of the claim, the insurer must schedule the IME within the same time frame as medical examinations—within 30 days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification form (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d])—and must schedule an EUO within a reasonable time frame and as “expeditiously as possible.” (Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 49, 51 [App Term, 2d Dept 2008].)

“[If the] requested verification[ ] has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar{**24 Misc 3d at 234} days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b] [emphasis added].)

“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2d Dept 2004]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]).

In the instant matter, it is clear that the defendant made two requests in writing to the insured for an EUO prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form from plaintiff on December 18, 2006, and that it adjourned the EUO scheduled on December 15th until January 3rd at the request of the assignor’s attorney on January 2, 2007. Therefore both the initial and follow-up scheduling letters preceded defendant’s receipt of the claim.

In Stephen Fogel Psychological (7 Misc 3d 18 [2004]), the Appellate Term found that an insurer had the right to conduct an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form or its [*4]statutory equivalent which, “under the regulations, triggers the verification process.” (Id. at 20.) The insurance regulations first mention the right of an insurer to request an IME (and EUO) in the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, “which is independent of the verification protocols,” and, in light of the broad language authorizing IMEs, the court found there “to be no reason to preclude an insurer from requesting an IME prior to its receipt of the statutory claim form” (id. at 20). The reviewing court stated that such an interpretation furthers “the policies underlying no-fault insurance, including . . . the expeditious processing of claims” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]).

The Appellate Term then found that the right to an IME “at this juncture is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables” because 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (d) “is not, on its face or contextually, a ‘verification’ provision, and because the detailed and narrowly construed verification protocols are not amenable to application at a stage prior to submission of the claim form.” (7 Misc 3d at 21.) In All-Boro Med. Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (20 Misc 3d 554 [Civ Ct, Kings County{**24 Misc 3d at 235} 2008]), Judge Sweeney extended this reasoning to EUOs, finding that an insurance company acted within its rights under the endorsement by scheduling an EUO before it had received the claim.

In light of the above, and since defendant’s right to conduct an EUO of the assignor, at this juncture, is not afforded by the verification procedures and timetables, it is clear that the language governing the verification procedures and, hence, postclaim EUOs—that the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b])—is inapplicable to this preclaim EUO. As such, the fact that neither the SIU investigator nor the claims representative mentioned whether the EUO notices were sent to the assignor’s attorney is of no consequence.

Having determined that defendant properly requested an EUO before it received a claim, and that it was not required to send the EUO requests to the attorney, the court must decide whether an insurer’s timely denial of a claim, based upon an insured’s failure to appear for a preclaim EUO, which constitutes a breach of a condition precedent to payment, is a valid ground upon which to award summary judgment to the defendant.

In Stephen Fogel Psychological (35 AD3d 720 [2006]), the Second Department disagreed with the second portion of the Appellate Term decision which had distinguished the contractual remedies available to an insurer based upon whether the IME no-show was preclaim or postclaim. In the case of postclaim IME no-shows, the insurer could rely upon the remedy available upon nonreceipt of requested verification—the 30-day period in which to pay or deny a claim does not begin to run and any claim for payment by the provider is deemed to be premature. (7 Misc 3d at 20, citing New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]; see All-Boro v Progressive, 20 Misc 3d at 556-557.) However, this was inapplicable to preclaim IME no-shows, which must be governed by “general principles of no-fault” law; i.e., that a failure to attend a preclaim IME would defeat the presumption of medical necessity that inures to a medical provider’s properly submitted claim and hence would defeat a provider’s motion for a summary judgment (7 Misc 3d at 21-22). [*5]

The Second Department disagreed with this portion of the ruling, declaring that there was no distinction between the contractual remedies an insurance company could invoke{**24 Misc 3d at 236} depending upon whether the failure to appear for an IME occurred before or after the submission of the claim form. Since the appearance of an insured at IMEs (and EUOs) was a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy, an insurer could retroactively deny a claim to the date of loss for a claimant’s failure to attend IMEs. (See also All-Boro v Progressive, 20 Misc 3d at 556 [where Judge Sweeney opined that a failure to appear for a preclaim EUO was a “valid ground for denying the claim ‘retroactively to the date of loss’ “].) However, once an insurer received a claim, it was “required to adhere to the statutory and regulatory scheme for the processing of no-fault claims” and it therefore had to pay or deny the claim within 30 days of its receipt. (Id.)

Here, the defendant established the standard office practices and procedures used to ensure that the verification requests and the denial were properly addressed and mailed, and presented an affidavit from an SIU investigator who had personal knowledge of both the mailings and the EUO no-show. Defendant has established that it timely denied the claim and summary judgment is granted to defendant.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Defendant also submitted an affidavit from a claims representative who personally denied the claims and had personal knowledge of the office’s business procedures concerning the mailing of denials.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

42103/04

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case raises again the issue of what type of evidence a defendant insurance company must present, in support of its claim that a medical service provider is fraudulently incorporated, to warrant an order from the court directing extensive discovery or EBT’s. .

Plaintiff Lenox Neuropsychiatry Medical (“Lenox” or “plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) to recover $ 3,888.79 in unpaid bills for acupuncture services rendered to its assignor Leon Murray (“Murray”). The defendant, State Farm Insurance Co., (“State Farm” or “defendant”) alleges that plaintiff is fraudulently incorporated in violation of 11 NYCRR § 65.3.16(a)(12) and moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to provide complete and meaningful responses to defendant’s discovery demands. In the alternative, defendant moves to compel plaintiff to fully comply with plaintiff’s discovery demands and to produce plaintiff’s purported owner, Dr. Azim Etemadi (“Etemadi”) for an EBT, pursuant to CPLR §3124. In support of its motion, defendant presents an affirmation from its attorney chronicling the web of fraud allegedly surrounding plaintiff and a number of other medical providers as well as an affidavit from one Dr. Ahmed Halima (“Halima”), a doctor who has worked for a number of medical providers, that purportedly implicates Etemadi in this fraudulent scheme.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, stating that defendant is not entitled to extensive discovery or to take an EBT since it has failed to provide any coherent evidence to support its allegation that plaintiff is fraudulently incorporated. Accordingly, plaintiff moves this court for a protective order pursuant to CPLR §3103(a).Plaintiff also alleges that the defendant’s motion is defective since it failed to annex a denial of claim to its motion.

Article 31 of the CPLR governs discovery actions and its disclosure provisions do not [*2]condition discovery upon a showing of “good cause.”The guiding principle behind Article 31 of the CPLR is that there should be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution and defense of an action” (CPLR §3101 (a)). The words “material and necessary” are to be interpreted liberally and the test is “one of usefulness and reason” to assist in the preparation for trial by sharpening the issues. Cambridge Medical v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 1110A, 859 NYS2d 901(Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2008), citing Carothers v. Insurance Companies et al, 13 Misc 3d 970, 973 (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2006). Although the bar against which to measure whether the defendant has shown that its discovery requests are warranted on the issue of fraudulent incorporation is quite low, Bay Plaza Chiropractic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 51925U, 21 Misc 3d 1102A (Civil Ct., Richmond Co.2008), citing Carothers, supra , unsupported conclusions and “suspicions” as well as “unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions” are nevertheless insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact pertaining to the assignor’s alleged fraud. A.B. Medical Services PLLC v Eagle Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 8, 10 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2003).

Insurers have the burden to come forward with proof in admissible form to establish the factual basis of their allegations. Mt. Sinai Hospital v Triboro Coach Inc., 263 AD2d 11, 20 (2d Dept 1999). In fact, in Mallela, the Court of Appeals specifically permitted insurers to “look beyond the face of licensing documents to identify willful and material failure to abide by state and local law,” State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Mallela et al., 4 NY3d 313, 321 [3d Dept 2005], in assessing whether to withhold reimbursement of no-fault claims to medical corporations they believe to be fraudulently incorporated. Id., see, One Beacon Ins. Co. v. Midland Medical Care, 54 AD3d 738, (2d Dept 2008).

In Bay Plaza v. State Farm, this court addressed the issue of what constitutes a sufficient showing for purposes of allowing defendant additional discovery into plaintiff’s matters to determine if it is fraudulently incorporated. There, the defendant submitted an affidavit from its Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) investigator with personal knowledge of the investigation as well as other documentation which included clearly marked insurance claim forms evidencing duplicative claims and even of more importance, affirmation from defendant’s attorney, explaining the logical connection between the plaintiff and fraud. Accordingly, this court found that defendant has articulated a “founded belief” that plaintiff is actually controlled by a non-licensed professional and made allegations sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was fraudulently incorporated.

In contrast, here, the defendant has submitted unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions and has not articulated a founded belief that Lenox is fraudulently incorporated so as to warrant the extensive discovery it is seeking. Defendant attempts to question whether Dr. Etemadi is the true owner of Lenox by weaving an intricate pattern of alleged fraud premised upon the fact that defendant received bills from Dr. Etemadi for services he allegedly rendered while working at different medical providers. Since Lenox, as well as the other medical [*3]providers from whom Dr. Etemadi submitted. bills use the same billing companies, and since two of these billing companies have the same address and phone numbers,” a hallmark of improperly owned PCs” is present (affirmation of Joseph A. Schwarzenberg , Esq, “attorney’s affirmation, ¶¶ 7-9 ). Defendant then asserts that Dr. Etemadi also renders services for another entity, “Livingston Medical,” which along with its purported owner have been implicated in “doc in the box activity” (attorney affirmation, ¶13, 14) because the U.S. Attorney indicted an attorney who was associated with Livingston and other medical clinics, with “participating in a conspiracy to commit health care and insurance fraud related to automobile accidents “(attorney affirmation, ¶¶ 13-16). However, even this assertion does not implicate Livingston per se much less Lenox or Dr. Etemadi.

Finally, defendant refers to an affidavit of Dr. Halima that has no caption or index number, and is dated 2006, which laboriously details clinics which are purportedly owned and controlled by individuals who are not doctors. It is salient to note that Dr. Halima never implicates Lenox is this scheme and only refers to once to a Dr. Atamedi, which defendant’s attorney argues in reality is Etemadi. Defendant also attempts to implicate Etemadi because one medical facility he worked for lists a service of process contact name that sounds similar to a name of individual Halima claims is implicated in fraud.

The court finds this alleged web of fraud to be beyond the six degrees of separation that could conceivably connect these various medical providers to one another ^[FN1].The court first takes issue with defendant’s claim that Dr. Etemadi is synonymous with the Dr. Atamedi mentioned in Halima’s affidavit. Furthermore, the court can give little credence to Dr. Halima’s affidavit since it apparently was borrowed from some unknown and unrelated case and does not even mention Lenox Neuropsychiatry! Second, while defendant has made a valiant attempt to implicate Lenox and Neuropsychiatry with numerous billing companies and one other medical provider which somehow may be implicated in a fraudulent scheme by virtue of the acts of an attorney, there simply is no direct or indirect connection between Lenox or Etemadi and actual or attempted fraud.

Given the above, this court does not find defendant has articulated a “founded belief” that plaintiff is actually controlled by a non-licensed professional so as to warrant a broad based trial on fraud or to warrant extensive discovery on fraudulent incorporation. In fact, defendant’s attempts to link plaintiff to fraudulent incorporation are too convoluted as to even provide guidance as to what reasonable discovery would be warranted. However, although not specifically articulated by defendant, this court is curious as to why Dr. Etemadi would render services for a number of medical clinics if he is in fact the owner of Lenox, which would [*4]theoretically require him to devote his time and energy to overseeing the operation of Lenox. As such, this court finds that it is material and necessary for defendant to conduct a limited EBT of Etemadi to ascertain the extent of his work with clinics separate and apart of Lenox, whether any of these clinics have actually been found by a court to have been fraudulently incorporated, and the extent of his knowledge as to the actual operations of these other clinics.

In light of the above, the motion is denied except for the limited EBT that will be allowed of Dr. Etemadi. The court directs defendant to notice Etemadi for an EBT within the next twenty days of receipt of this decision and that the EBT be conducted within the next 45 days.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:January 29, 2009

Staten Island, NYHON. KATHERINE A. LEVINE

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by ________ on ____________.

___

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Six degrees of separation is the theory that anyone on the planet can be connected to each other through a chain of acquaintances that has no more than five intermediaries. The theory was first proposed in 1929 by the Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy in a short story called “Chains”.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, December 31, 2008

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Emilia I. Rutigliano, Brooklyn, for plaintiff. James F. Sullivan, New York City, for defendant.

{**23 Misc 3d at 240} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Levine, J.

{**23 Misc 3d at 241}Plaintiff, Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) to recover $317 in unpaid bills for medical equipment it provided to its assignor Tammy Agosto, with statutory interest and attorney fees. Yklik moves for summary judgment based upon a claimed prima facie showing that its bills were properly submitted and that the defendant Allstate Insurance Company failed to pay or deny the claim within 30 days. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant’s denial was untimely.

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company opposes the motion, asserting that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case since the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager is not based on his personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s office practices and billing procedures. Of greater import, Allstate contends that since plaintiff’s claims were in excess of the fee schedule contained in the Workers’ Compensation Law, and since defendant made a partial payment to plaintiff, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether defendant paid the appropriate amount for medical services, hence mandating a denial of summary judgment.

A medical provider must limit its charges to those permitted by approved fee schedules (Insurance Law § 5108 [a]; 11 NYCRR 68.0 [f]) “which protects a patient from erosion of available benefits by inflated charges.” (Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996, 1005 n 13 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2007], citing Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 04-06-11 [June 2004].) The fees for services and procedures are governed by the workers’ compensation fee schedule (11 NYCRR 68.1) and durable medical goods fees are governed by the New York Medicaid fee schedule (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C part F) (collectively referred to as fee schedule).

Ordinarily, a fee schedule dispute raises a triable issue of fact, hence defeating a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Complete Orthopedic Supplies at 1005.) However, plaintiff contends that defendant is barred from even raising the defense that the bills exceeded the fee schedule or partial payment of the claim because defendant failed to submit a timely denial. In its papers in opposition, defendant summarily asserts that it issued a timely denial. However, during oral argument, defendant asserted that since it paid the bills in accordance with the fee schedule, and since plaintiff is not entitled to be compensated in excess of the fee schedule, that it need not file a timely denial or any denial.

It is clear that plaintiff has established its prima facie case. The affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager exhaustively details{**23 Misc 3d at 242} the record keeping procedures of the business, and clearly sets forth the procedures for the creation and retention of bills, of which he has personal knowledge. (See Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51844[U], *1 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008], citing Second Med., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 291, 294-295 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2008].) The affidavit further details that the bills at issue were made and kept in the ordinary course of business at the time the services were rendered and sets forth the precise mailing procedure that was followed. Moreover, the billing manager personally packaged, sealed, applied postage to and mailed the bill and supplies.

The burden then shifts to the defendant in a no-fault case to show a triable issue of fact. (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986].) To defeat an award of summary judgment to plaintiff, defendant must provide proof, in evidentiary form, that it either paid or denied the claim within 30 days of receipt or that it asserts a nonprecludable defense. (Carle Place Chiropractic v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 1139[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51065[U] [Nassau Dist Ct 2008]; see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997].)

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim or it will be precluded from offering any defenses at trial (preclusion rule). (Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 1138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51063[U], *2 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008], citing Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889, 889-890 [2d Dept 2007]; Presbyterian Hosp., 90 NY2d at 278.)

As recently summarized by this court in Manhattan Med. (supra), the Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that there is only one narrow exception to the preclusion rule—where an insurance company raises the defense of lack of coverage. (See Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563-564 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317-318 [2007].) In those cases the insurer who fails to issue a timely denial is not precluded from later raising this defense because “the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the first instance, and requiring payment{**23 Misc 3d at 243} of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed.” (Hospital for Joint Diseases at 318.)

Thus, the “key issue” in every case is whether the “facts fit within the narrow no-coverage exception to the preclusion rule” (10 NY3d at 564). A court, in determining whether a specific defense is precluded under the 30-day rule or falls within the exception, must assess whether the defense is more like a “normal exception” from coverage such as a policy exclusion or a lack of coverage in the first instance, i.e., a defense “implicat[ing] a coverage matter.” (10 NY3d at 565.)

The typical defenses that fall within the rubric of lack of coverage are that of a staged automobile accident (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 42 AD3d 277, 284 [2d Dept 2007]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Goddard, 29 AD3d 698, 699 [2d Dept 2006]; Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92, 94 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004]); where the claimant’s injuries arose out of a prior work-related accident rather than a car accident (Chubb, 90 NY2d 195 [1997]); or where the insurance company has articulated a founded belief that the plaintiff is fraudulently incorporated (Bay Plaza Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1102[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51925[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008]; Matter of Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Insurance Cos. Represented by Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano LLP, 13 Misc 3d 970 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2006]).

A medical provider must limit its charges to those permitted by approved fee schedules (Insurance Law § 5108 [a]; 11 NYCRR 68.0 [f]) “which protects a patient from erosion of available benefits by inflated charges.” (Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996, 1005 [2007], citing Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 04-06-11 [June 2004].) The fees for services and procedures are governed by the workers’ compensation fee schedule (11 NYCRR 68.1) and durable medical goods fees are governed by the New York Medicaid fee schedule (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C part F). An insurer who raises this defense will prevail if it demonstrates that it was correct in its reading of the fee schedules unless the plaintiff shows that “an unusual procedure or unique circumstance justifies the necessity” for a charge above the schedules’ fee (11 NYCRR 68.4; Complete Orthopedic Supplies, 16 Misc 3d at 1005). However, before this defense can be invoked an insurer must prove a timely denial.{**23 Misc 3d at 244}

In Fair Price (10 NY3d 556 [2008]), the Court distinguished the defense that the assignor never received the medical supplies from the plaintiff from the defense raised by the insurance company in Chubb (supra)—that the claimant’s injuries arose out of a prior related accident rather than a car accident. Only the latter—”a lack of coverage” defense—fell outside the preclusion rule since if in fact the injuries were unrelated to the accident, the treatment would not have been covered by the automobile liability policy in the first instance. (10 NY3d at 564, quoting Chubb at 199.) The defense that the billed-for services were never rendered, on the other hand, was more akin to a normal exception from coverage, like the defense of billing for unnecessary procedures found by the Chubb court to fall within the preclusion rule. (10 NY3d at 564, citing Chubb, 90 NY2d at 199 [overbilling does not ordinarily implicate a coverage matter].) This is so because in both situations there was [*2]an actual accident and an actual injury, where “coverage legitimately came into existence.” (Id. at 565, quoting Fair Price, 42 AD3d at 285.)

The same reasoning applies to the defense that the claims were in excess of a fee schedule. The parties do not dispute that the assignor is entitled to no-fault insurance benefits. There was an actual accident where the assignor sustained real injuries; the assignor was covered by defendant under an actual insurance policy; and the assignor was prescribed medical equipment which Yklik provided and for which the insurer was billed. Thus, an insurer can only preserve a fee schedule defense by first complying with the 30-day rule and issuing a timely denial. (Complete Orthopedic Supplies at 1005; Jamil M. Abraham M.D. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50388[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004] [“by virtue of a timely claims denial an insurer is entitled” to raise a fee schedule defense and establish that charges exceeded those permitted by law]; see Forrest Chen Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 54 AD3d 996 [2d Dept 2008].)

In light of these opinions, it is clear that the defenses of fee schedule noncompliance and partial payment made in accordance with the fee schedule are precluded if defendant fails to disclaim coverage in timely a manner pursuant to the no-fault regulations. Here, the denial annexed to plaintiff’s papers as exhibit 3 reveals that defendant received the claims on July 10, 2007 and mailed the denial on September 4, 2007, waiting approximately{**23 Misc 3d at 245} 56 days to send out its denial. By failing to timely submit its denial, defendant is precluded from raising the defense of noncompliance with the fee schedule and summary judgment is granted to plaintiff.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

14725/07

Defendant: Moia A. Doherty, Esq.

50 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Suite 400

Uniondale, New York 11533-9850

Plaintiff:Bakers, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman,

Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, New York 11501

Katherine A. Levine, J.

This case invokes the inverted trajectory that must be followed when an insurer raises the defense that a medical services provider has failed to timely submit its proof of claim.

Defendant Clarendon National Ins. Co., (“defendant” or “Clarendon”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff, Joseph Rockman LMT a/a/o Delilah Serrano (“plaintiff” or “Rockman”) on the grounds that plaintiff failed to timely submit written proof of claim within 180 days after the date medical services were rendered pursuant to 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12 (“old

rules”) ^[FN1] or within 45 days after the services were rendered pursuant to 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-1.1 (“new rules”).^[FN2]Defendant alleges that the bills, dated 4/17/07, are for services rendered in [*2]October – November 2002 ; the bills are thus dated some four and a half years after the services were rendered. Specifically, defendant asserts that the first time it learned about this claim was when plaintiff served its law office with a summons and complaint dated August 16, 2007, which attached a chart referring to such bill dated 4/17/07, although no such bill was attached.

Defendant further avers that its law office received the actual bill, dated 4/17/07, when it received discovery in a related case involving the same medical provider on or about,

October 10, 2007. Defendant thereupon mailed its denial of the bill on, November 7, 2007 within 30 days of its receipt of the bill, thus preserving the defense of late submission.

Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why it has failed to present a health insurance claim form dated within 180 days of the dates of services in October – November 2002. Nor does it address how it came to pass that defendant was made aware of the claim’s existence through discovery in another matter. Rather, plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment alleging that plaintiff made its prima facie case by setting forth that the bills were mailed and not paid or denied within thirty days. In support of its motion, plaintiff submits a generic affidavit from Dr. Joseph Rockman, dated December 10, 2007, which details in great detail the office’s practices and procedures for mailing out claims for service and then states that in accordance with that procedure, the “aforementioned bills, which are the subject of this lawsuit, were mailed to the defendant.” Accompanying this affidavit were Dr. Rockman’s notes of his treatment of the assignor during 2002-03 and the Health Insurance Claim form dated, 4/17/07, for services purportedly rendered in November 2002. Plaintiff fails to explain why the only health insurance

claim it can produce is dated April 17, 2007 and does not address how this particular claim form was formulated or mailed.

To grant summary judgment, “it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980). Once such proof has been offered, in order for the opposing party to defeat the motion for summary judgment, it must “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” Inwood Hills Medical P.C. v. Bronx Neurodiagnostics P.C., 3 Misc 3d 1110A, 787 NYS2d 678 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2004) quoting CLR 3212 (b). See, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986). If the opposing party fails to submit evidentiary facts to controvert the fact in the movant’s papers, then summary judgment must be grated since there are not triable issues of fact. Inwood, supra . See, Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. F.W. Baiden, 36 [*3]NY2d 539 (1975).

Pursuant to Insurance Law §5106, a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits. The old regulations required that written proof of claim must be submitted to the insurance company “as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later] than 180 days after the date services are rendered or 180 days after the date written notice was given to the [insurer].” (11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12) See, Montefiore Medical Center v. Mary Immaculate Hospital, 9 AD3d 354 (2d Dept. 2004). Within 30 days of receiving a claim, the insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part (see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [g] [3]). This 30-day period may be extended by a timely demand by the insurance company for further verification of a claim (see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [d] [1]). A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided (see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [g] [1] [I] Id at 355 ; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553,(2d Dept. 1999). In the event an insurer fails to timely deny a claim or request verification from the hospital, the insurer is precluded from asserting that the claim was untimely or incomplete . Montefiore Medical Center,, supra at 355. See, Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282,(1997); New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583 (2002).

Although a health care provider is required to submit its proof of claim within 180 days after the services were rendered, ” an insurer is precluded from asserting the defense of a provider’s untimely submission of proof of claim if it does not issue a timely denial of claim.” Mid Atlantic Medical P.C. , v. Travelers Indemnity, Co., 12 Misc 3d 147A, 824 NYS2d 769 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2006). See, New York & Presbyt. Hops. V. Eagle Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 646 (2d Dept. 2005); Montefiore Medical Ctr., supra

It is clear that defendant Clarendon may assert this defense since it timely denied the claim. Defendant submitted two affidavits from its claims representative averring that Clarendon never received any claim forms dated 2002 or 2003 for services rendered between, November 1- 15, 2002, and hence could not have denied such claim. Rather, defendant first became aware of the bills dated April 17, 2007 for services rendered back in 2002 when its attorneys were served with a summons and complaint, dated July 2007, in this matter. Annexed to the complaint was a chart referring to the assignor, listing the amount owed and the dates of service. The actual bills for these services were not

received by Clarendon until October 10, 2007, when the they were included as part of discovery in a related case sent to defendant’s attorneys. The affiant claims examiner then issued a denial on November 7, 2007, within 30 days of the bill’s receipt, and the denial was mailed on that same day in accordance with the standard office mailing procedures. .

Having properly asserted this defense, defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless [*4]plaintiff can raise a factual issue as to whether the aforementioned bills were in fact mailed on, December 14, 2002, as asserted by plaintiff. “Service of both the no-fault claim and assignment forms is established by an actual affidavit of mailing or by proof of an office practice and procedure followed . . . in the regular course of . . . business’… geared so as to ensure the likelihood that [the item] is always properly addressed and mailed Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996, 999 (Civil Ct., Queens Co.. 2007) citing Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830(1978). . A post office receipt may supply additional “direct proof of actual mailing” (LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 727, 728, (3d Dept 2006) provided the evidence relates the receipt to an identified mailing (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 548 (2d Dept 2006).Such proof may also include a medical services bill with a certified mail return receipt, (Hospital for Joint Diseases and Presbyterian Hosp. v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 352 (2d Dept. 2006); NY. & Presbyterian Hosp. V. Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492 (2d Dept. 2006); and or a signed return receipt card which referenced the patient and forms and an affidavit of a third party biller (NY. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Ins. Co., 37 A.D 3d 683 ( 2d Dept. 2007).

In the instant matter, plaintiff has failed to present evidentiary facts to controvert defendant’s denial based upon plaintiff’s untimely submission of the bills. No presumption of mailing was created because the affidavit of Dr. Rockman did not state that he actually mailed the particular claims at issue, and Dr. Rockman’s recital of his office practices did not establish, by admissible proof, that this procedure was in fact followed on, December 12, 2002. See, Multiquest PLLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 1069(A), .814 NYS2d 563 (Civil Ct., Queens Co. 2004)( affidavit of plaintiff s owner, in which he does not attest to personal knowledge of this claim but states that he is “fully familiar with all the policies, practices and procedures” of plaintiff, is insufficient to lay a foundation for the exhibits attached to the moving papers. “Significantly, plaintiff fails to establish the mailing of its claim to defendant, a necessary element of its prima facie case.”) (See Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742, 774 NYS2d 564 (2d Dept 2004); Residential Holding Corp , supra . Fatally missing from plaintiff’s papers is a copy of the medical claim dated in 2002 that was purportedly mailed on December 13, 2002.

Specifically, Dr. Rockman averred that it is his office’s customary practice that after the envelope containing the bill is delivered to the U.S post office, a photocopy of the bill and supporting documents are then placed in the appropriate patient file and a notation is made on the file confirming the date and amount of the bill and the date the bill was mailed. He then alleged that the bills which are subject of this lawsuit were mailed on 12/13/02. However, as set forth above, plaintiff has failed to produce the bill that was purportedly mailed in December 2002 or even the notation that was made on the file concerning the mailing, and none of the documents that plaintiff did produce in support of its motion contain any reference to a mailing in December 2002. In fact, the only bill that plaintiff did produce for the dates of

service in question is dated April 17, 2007, and plaintiff has offered no evidence concerning the mailing of the 2007 bill. As such, plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that could be introduced at trial so as to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Given the aforementioned reasoning, plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Along this line, it should be noted that plaintiff has failed to establish its prima facie right to judgment as it has failed to demonstrate its timely and proper submission of the claims in question See, Presbyterian Hospital, supra , 90 NY2d 274 (1997), Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology v. Geico, 2008 NY Slip Op. 50113U, 18 Misc 3d 1117A (Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 2008). As set forth above, plaintiff has failed to provide admissible proof of mailing of the purported bill dated December 2002. Furthermore, plaintiff has offered no evidence whatsoever to lay a foundation for the admission of the bill dated April 17, 2007. See, e.g. Complete Orthopedic Supplies v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996 (Civil Ct. Queens Co. 2007). concerning the mailing of the bill dated April 17, 2007 that it has been able to produce.

In sum, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff’s cross-motion is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court .

Dated October 17, 2008______________________________

Hon. Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

ASN by _______on___________

A P P E A R A N C E S

Defendant: Moia A. Doherty, Esq.

50 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Suite 400

Uniondale, New York 11533-9850

Plaintiff:Bakers, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman,

Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, New York 11501

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Defendant originally contended that plaintiff failed to submit the claims with 45 days of the date of service but later amended its motion to claim Claim that plaintiff violated the 180 day rule provision under the old regulations.

Footnote 2: Insurance Department Regulation 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-3.3 and 65-2.4 shortened the time period filing no fault claims from 180 days to 45 days from the rendering of medical services. Pursuant to the revised insurance regulation, all automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002 are required to include a revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (“Endorsement”) which reduces the time within which claims are to be submitted from 180 days to 45 days (11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65.12 [e], now Insurance Department Regulations [11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65-1.1 [b]. See, Mtr. Of Medical Society of the State of NY v. Serio, 298 AD2d 255 (1st Dept. 2002); Eagle Chiropractic P.C., v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129A, 859 NYS2d 902 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); S & M Supply v State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 791 NYS2d 873 (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004). The latest date of expiration for an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would be April 2003 S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. supra .

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

21281/07

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Defendant, State Farm Mutual Inc. Co., (“State Farm” or “defendant”) moves to dismiss plaintiff Bay Plaza Chiropractic’s (“Bay Plaza” or “plaintiff”) complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3126, for plaintiff’s failure to appear for an examination before trial (“EBT”) or to provide verified, complete and meaningful responses to defendant’s discovery demands. In the alternative, defendant moves to vacate plaintiffs’s Notice of Trial and compel plaintiff to fully comply with plaintiff’s discovery demands and to then produce plaintiff’s purported owner, Dr. Geraldine McGowan for an EBT. In support of its motion, defendant presents an affirmation from its attorney as well as an affidavit from an investigator in its Special Investigative Unit (“SIU”) and documentary evidence.

Defendant claims that plaintiff may be a fraudulently incorporated facility that is actually owned, operated, and controlled by unlicensed persons. It alleges it first became suspicious about plaintiff when it consistently submitted bills for chiropractic services purportedly rendered to patients who were receiving physical therapy treatments for the same condition, at the same location, and during the same time period. Defendant avers that because the plaintiff s bills are often submitted c/o HIJ Management (“HIJ”), using that entity’s address, and because HIJ management’s owner, Jesse Haber, often submits affidavits of mailing for Bay Plaza as the “biller of Bay Plaza,” in support of its motions for summary judgment, that the plaintiff is actually owned by Jesse Haber in violation of 11 NYCRR § 65.15 and Insurance Law sec. 5108. Defendant then asserts that since payments from insurance companies will not go to the purported owner of plaintiff – Dr. McGowan – but to Haber, there is a “clear issue as to who is actually receiving the plaintiff’s profits, and who is truly controlling the plaintiff’s finances” (Affirmation of Stuart Flamen, Esq., ¶9. )

Defendant further alleges that an EBT of the purported owner McGowan is warranted [*2]since she is listed as the executive not only of Sue Ellen Ginsberg, DO, PC, but of several other facilities connected to improper licensors. For example, defendant claims McGowan is affiliated with several entities owned or formerly owned by one Stanley Sonn who is being sued in federal court by another insurance company. Thus, an EBT is “the only way to uncover who really owns and controls the plaintiff provider” (Flamen affirmation, ¶16).

Defendant surmises that plaintiff can very well be engaging in the “doc-in-the -box” scheme whereby the plaintiff is actually owned and controlled by non-professionals which would negate plaintiff’s standing to collect non-fault benefits. In this scheme, the nominal owner – the physician- does not receive the profits which go to the lay persons who own the management company that actually runs facility (¶¶17). As such, defendant contends that it has set forth a reasonable basis of suspicion for fraud .

Plaintiff responds that it provided responses to the discovery requests and that the remaining requests are patently oppressive and should be stricken. Plaintiff also notes that the courts normally do not allow a secondary disclosure device (such as depositions) unless the first chosen devise does not adequately disclose all evidence material and is necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. Plaintiff further counters that the discovery demands are not proper because defendant has not shown either “good cause” or a “founded belief” that the plaintiff is fraudulently incorporated and moves for a protective order. Plaintiff also alleges that the defendant’s motion is defective since it failed to submit an affidavit from an investigator with defendant’s Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) and is based upon an affidavit made without personal knowledge, and thus is based only on conjecture, speculation and exaggeration.

This court has previously addressed the issue of whether the language contained in State Farm Insurance v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005) requiring that a defendant insurer show “good cause” by demonstrating behavior on the plaintiff ‘s part ” tantamount to fraud,” applies to

discovery requests and or verification requests. See Cambridge Medical P.C. v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip. Op. 50629U, 19 Misc 3d 1110A, 859 NYS2d 901 (Civil Ct. Richmond Co. 2008). There, this court adopted Judge Sweeney’s reasoning in Carothers v. Insurance Companies et al, 13 Misc 3d 970 (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2006) that “good cause” is not a mandatory requisite to ordering discovery, but only applies to”investigations conducted by insurers during the claims process in accordance with their entitlement under the regulatory scheme to seek verification of claims (11 NYCRR part 65) and not those conducted by litigants during the discovery process.” 13 Misc 3d at 972.

Article 31 of the CPLR governs discovery actions before the civil court, and its disclosure provisions simply do not condition discovery upon a showing of “good cause”. The guiding principle behind article 31 of the CPLR is that there should be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution and defense of an action” (CPLR §3101 (a)). The words “material and necessary” are to be interpreted liberally and the test is “one of usefulness and reason” to assist in the preparation for trial by sharpening the issues. Cambridge Medical. Slip op. At 3 at citing Carothers, supra , 13 Misc 3d at 973. [*3]

Furthermore, since the “defense of fraudulent incorporation is a complete defense to a claim for no-fault benefits, one that is not subject to the rules of preclusion,” it appears that the bar against which to measure whether a defendant has shown that its discovery requests on the issue of fraudulent incorporation are “material and necessary” is quite low. Carothers, supra at 975. See, Lexington Acupuncture P.C., v. State Farm Insurance Co., 12 Misc 3d 90, (App Term 2d Dept. 2006). In fact, in Mallela, the Court of Appeals specifically permitted insurers to “look

beyond the face of licensing documents to identify willful and material failure to abide by state and local law,” 4 NY3d at 321, in assessing whether to withhold reimbursement of no -fault claims to medical corporations they believe to be fraudulently incorporated. See, One Beacon Ins. Co. V. Midland Medical Care, 2008 NY Slip. Op. 06813, 2008 WL 4166851 ( App. Div., 2d Dept. 2008).

This court first finds that defendant has articulated a”founded belief” that plaintiff is actually controlled by a non-licensed professional. Defendant has therefore made allegations sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff is fraudulently incorporated. See, Tahir v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 657, 664 (Civil Ct., NY Co. 2006)(“fraudulent intent is rarely established by direct proof, but we nevertheless conclude that there are sufficient badges of fraud’ in this case from which such intention can be inferred”) “citing Spires v. Mihou, 13 AD3d 1056,57 (4th Dept. 2007)). In support of its founded belief, and contrary to plaintiff’s allegation, defendant did submit an affidavit from its SIU investigator who had personal knowledge of the investigation. In numerous cases, defendant insurers have been permitted to proceed to trial based upon affidavits of investigators employed by the insurance company’s Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) who allege personal knowledge of the alleged fraud. See, American Honda Finance Corp. V Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 290 AD2d 850 (3d Dept. 2002) (“at this preliminary stage of the proceeding, a question of fact is lurking as to whether Perez committed fraud or made other material representations such that policy exclusion would preclude recovery); Northern Medical v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I ns. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op. 50753U, 19 Misc 3d 1117A (Civil Ct., Queens Co., 2008).

It should also be noted that even if defendant had not submitted an affidavit from its SIU investigator, the affirmation from defendant’s attorney, along with the attached documentation, would have been sufficient for this court to order further discovery. Where defendants raise the defense of fraudulent incorporation, the courts have denied motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs, despite the defendant’s failure to present an affidavit based upon personal knowledge, where the opposition papers set forth that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated.” Midwood Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. , 14 Misc 3d 131A, 836 NYS2d 486 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007); Lexington Acupuncture, P.C., v. State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 90, 92 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006). The courts have reasoned that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment are premature pending the completion of discovery. Id.,

However, in the end, “the scope of discovery is not unlimited” and is left to the broad discretion of the trial court, which must assess the request on a case by case basis taking into [*4]consideration the “intrusiveness of the discovery device and the merits, or lack thereof, of the claim” Carothers, supra 13 Misc 3d at 974 citing Greater NY Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lancer Ins. Co., 203 AD2d 515, 517 (2d Dept. 1994). To this end, Judge Sweeney found that the primary tool to be used by the court to control and supervise the scope of discovery was the protective order pursuant to CPLR §3103(a). Id at 974. . See Cambridge Medical, supra .

In light of the above, defendant has shown that it is material and necessary to compel further discovery and to depose Dr. McGowan with regard to the issue of fraudulent incorporation, a defense which is not precluded. As such, the court directs plaintiff to produce Dr. McGowan for an EBT within 30 days after the completion of discovery upon renotice by defendant. The Court also directs plaintiff to comply with all discovery requests that deal with corporate structure or that directly pertain to the issue of fraudulent incorporation including, but not limited to certificates of incorporation, management agreements, and the names of plaintiff’s shareholders and that it specifically answer Interrogatories 6,7,8, 23, 25, 26, and combined demands 4, 5, 9.29, 30.

The court is not convinced, at this juncture, that defendant has made a strong showing that the production of McGowan’s personal income taxes are “indispensable to the claim and cannot be obtained from other sources” and therefore will not order disclosure of McGowan’s personal income taxes. See, Benfeld v. Fleming Properties, 44 AD3d 599,600 (2d Dept. 2007); Altidor v. State-wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 435 ( 2d Dept. 2005); Great Wall Acupuncture v. State Farm Mutual Ins. 2008 NY Slip Op. 51529U, 20 Misc 3d 136A (Sup. Ct., App. Term, Sept. Dept. 2008). The court also finds that many of the other interrogatories or combined demands requests information are already in defendant’s possession or that are irrelevant or unduly burdensome. Since this court has repeatedly indicated that the parties are to work out discovery disputes between themselves, it will not at this juncture strike any protective order as to the irrelevant discovery requests.

The court will not dismiss the complaint since plaintiff has responded to some of the discovery requests and has not engaged in conduct that is willful, contumacious or in bad faith, as required by CPLR 3126. See, AVA Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 138A, (App. Term 2d and 11th Jud. Dist. 2007).

The court directs plaintiff to respond to the applicable defendant’s discovery request within 45 days of this decision and that defendant renotice Dr. McGowan for an EBT within 30 days after it receives plaintiff’s responses to its discovery requests. Plaintiffs must produce Dr. McGowan for the EBT.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. [*5]

DATED: September 22, 2008

Hon. Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

ASN byon