Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

025762/06

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Colleen Terry, Esq.

Baker, Sanders Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock

& Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Counsel for Defendant:

Lindsay Alexander, Esq.

Epstein & McDonald

One Whitehall Street, 13th Floor

New York, NY 10004-2109

212-248-9100

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Defendant Nationwide Property and Casualty (“defendant”) moves to dismiss plaintiff Cambridge Medical, P.C. A/A/O Richard Edwards ( “plaintiff”) complaint for failure to comply with defendant’s Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars and Combined Demand Request pursuant to C.P.L.R § 3126. Defendant alleges that because plaintiff failed to respond to it’s discovery request, defendant would be severely prejudiced at trial. In the alternative, defendant requests that the court grant summary judgment because the institution of the lawsuit is premature as plaintiff failed to comply with its verification requests.

In its verification requests, defendant’s claims department asked for certain information: the certificate of incorporation, the SS4 (application of federal employer identification program), the IRS acknowledgment letter approving TIN and the completed W-9 form, the name, address, license, certification, etc. for each person connected with the treatment or testing of the assignor in the instant claim, and sale of shares of ownership. Although defendant does not so state, the aforementioned requests appear to give rise to a defense of fraudulent incorporation in violation of the truth seeking opportunity set forth in 11 N.Y.C.R.R. sec.65.3.16(a)(12).

In its Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, counsel for defendant seeks a plethora of documents including items which appear to be similar to those requested in the verification requests: the names, addresses and birth dates of all directors, officers, shareholders, employees and owners listed on the stock certificate for plaintiff’s facility at time services were rendered (1-5).

Plaintiff asserts that it provided discovery that was proper and that defendant is not entitled to further discovery since it is merely engaging in a fishing expedition that is prohibited by State Farm Insurance Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005) and the regulations. Plaintiff also argues that under the No-Fault Law, the need for disclosure “must be substantiated by the [*2]reasons for the denial contained in the NF-10 and not simply predicated upon a plethora of unreserved affirmative defenses inserted in the answer as an afterthought.” See Metropolitan Radiological Imaging v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 2005 Slip Op 25063 (NY Civil Ct. 2006). Finally, plaintiff asserts that the verification forms were not timely mailed and that the affidavits of mailing were inadmissible.

In Mallela, the Court of Appeals held that insurers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently licensed medical service corporations to whom patients, who are covered by no-fault insurance, have assigned their claims. Insurance Law §5102 requires no-fault carriers to reimburse patients or their medical provider assignees for “basic economic loss.” In order to combat incidences of fraud, the Superintendent of Insurance promulgated 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-3.16(a)(12), which excludes from the definition of basic economic loss payments made to unlicensed or fraudulently licensed providers, thus rendering them ineligible for reimbursement. 4 NY3d at 320. After finding this regulation valid, the Court held that carriers “may look beyond the face of licensing documents to identify wilful and material failure to abide by state and local law.” Id at 321. Addressing the defendants’ contention that the insurance companies would turn this “investigatory privilege into a vehicle for delay and recalcitrance,” the Court stated:

“The regulatory scheme …. does not permit abuse of the truth-seeking opportunity that 11 N.Y.C.R.R. sec. 65-3.16(a)(12) authorizes. Indeed, the Superintendent’s regulations themselves provide for agency oversight of carriers, and demand that carriers delay the payment of claims to pursue investigations solely for good cause. (See N.Y.C.R.R. sec 65-3.2(c). In the licensing context, carriers will be unable to show “good cause” unless they can demonstrate behavior tantamount to fraud. Technical violations will not do…We expect and the Legislature surely intended, vigorous enforcement by the Superintendent against any carrier that uses the licensing requirement regulation to withhold or obstruct reimbursement to non-fraudulently incorporated health care providers. “

4 NY3d at 322.

The issue presented by these motions is therefore whether the language contained in Mallela 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. Mallela does not squarely address this issue.

This court follows the reasoning of Judge Sweeney in Carothers v. Insurance Companies et al, 13 Misc 3d 970 (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2006) and adopts that court’s finding that “good cause” is not a mandatory requisite to ordering discovery. In Carothers, supra , Judge Sweeney first noted that the regulation interpreted by the Mallela court – 11 NYCRR 65-3.2

(c) – “demands that the carriers delay payment of claims to pursue investigations solely for good cause.” Insurers are prohibited from demanding “verification of facts unless there are good reasons to do so” and are required to request verification of facts “as expeditiously as [*3]possible.” Judge Sweeney then found that the “investigations the Court was discussing in Mallela are those 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.

However, Judge Sweeney then noted that the entire discussion of good cause in Mallela was non-binding dicta since the only question that the Mallela court agreed to answer upon certification was whether “a medical corporation that was fraudulently incorporated” was entitled to be reimbursed by insurers for medical services rendered by licensed medical practitioners” Id at 973 citing 4 NY3d at 320.

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”.^[FN1] Judge Sweeney found that the guiding principle behind article 31 of the CPLR was 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. 13 Misc 3d at 973 citing Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 (1968). See also, Midwood Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual, 14 Misc 3d 131A, 836 NYS2d 486 ( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007); Midborough Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 58 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006) (both applying the material and necessary standard).

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. Id at 975. See Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Insurance Co., 12 Misc 3d 90, 820 NYS2d 385 ( App. Term, 2d Dept. 2006); A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. Prudential Propr. & Cas. Co., 11 Misc 3d 137[A], 816 NYS2d 693 (App. Term 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006). See also, Midborough Acupuncture PC v. State Farm Ins Co. Supra 13 Misc 3d at 58 (defendant’s papers establish that defendant’s discovery requests concerning whether plaintiff was fraudulently incorporated are material and necessary).

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 consideration the “intrusiveness of the discovery device and the merits, or lack thereof, of the claim” 13 Misc 3d at 974 citing Greater NY Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lancer Ins. Co., 203 AD2d 515, 517 (2d Dept. 1994). Since the amounts in dispute in most no- fault claims are small, the court should not “hesitate to exercise its protective powers under CPLR §313(a) so as to curtail discovery where it may become an unreasonable annoyance and tend[s] to harass and overburden the other party”, Conrad v. Park, 204 AD2d 1011, 1012 ( 1994), or “to prevent the proverbial [*4]fishing expedition” Id citing Auerbach v. Klein, 30 AD3d 451, 452 (2d Dept. 2006); Lattire v. Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 536 (2d Dept. 2003). 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.

This court is not convinced that different standards should govern the verification requests made by an insurance company during its investigatory stage, as opposed to discovery requests made by counsel for an insurance company during litigation for Mallela type documents. As set forth above, the scope of verification requests was not at issue in Mallela. Application of a higher standard for verification requests does not make sense since an insurance company should be able to ascertain as expeditiously as possible whether a medical provider is fraudulently incorporated under the No- Fault Law. However, since the Court of Appeals did find that the regulations preclude insurance carriers from delaying payment of claims unless they can show “good cause,” which demands a demonstration of behavior tantamount to fraud, this court must abide by the distinction.

The verification request for corporate documents does not contain any assertion that plaintiff Cambridge Medical engaged in any behavior that would cause one to suspect that it has been fraudulently incorporated. (See Exhibit C annexed to motion). As such, plaintiff need not further respond to the verification requests and this court denies the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant also fails to offer any justification for its request for Mallela type documents in its subsequent discovery requests. Its answer is void of any affirmative defense that defendant has reason to believe that the plaintiff may be fraudulently incorporated. However, in light of the broad latitude afforded to the courts in this department to grant Mallela type discovery requests, this court, upon conducting a balancing test, directs that plaintiff produce: the names, addresses and birth dates of all directors, officers, shareholders and owners listed on the stock certificate for plaintiff’s facility at the times services were rendered. Pursuant to CPLR §3103 (a) , this court issues a protective order limiting discovery to the aforementioned items, as the remainder of the bill of particulars ask for information that is either within the defendant’s knowledge or is unduly burdensome, irrelevant or immaterial.

For the above reasons, defendant’s motions to dismiss and/or summary judgment are denied. Given this ruling, this court need not consider plaintiff’s allegations with regard to the admissibility of the verification forms. It does appear, however, that the affidavit of mailing does allege personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and hence comports with the instructions set forth in Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. a/a/o Lidaine Philogene v. Chubb Group of Insurance,17Misc 3d 16 (2007)..

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: March 21, 2008___________________________

Staten Island, NYHON. KATHERINE A. LEVINE

Judge, Civil Court

Appearances

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Colleen Terry, Esq.

Baker, Sanders Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock

& Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Counsel for Defendant:

Lindsay Alexander, Esq.

Epstein & McDonald

One Whitehall Street, 13th Floor

New York, NY 10004-2109

212-248-9100

Footnotes

Footnote 1:In a footnote Judge Sweeney noted that although a showing of good cause is not a mandatory prerequisite to discovery, good cause is a factor that “might be considered” in determining the permissible scope of discovery

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

25573/06

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock

& Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-2320

Counsel for Defendant:

Teresa M. Spina, Esq.

88 Froelich Farm Blvd.

Suite 202

Woodbury, NY 11797

516-682-7274

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Plaintiff Cambridge Medical P.C. (“plaintiff”), a medical services provider, seeks to recover $1,617.69 for the EMG/NCV it conducted upon the assignor Webster Simmons (“Simmons” or “claimant”) following injuries that the claimant sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (“defendant” or “Geico”) claims that the tests were medically unnecessary. At the trial held on January 23, 2008, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and defendant’s timely denial of the claim. [*2]Therefore, the only issue presented to the court was whether the EMG/NCV conducted on October 5, 2006 was medically necessary.

The medical records put into evidence by plaintiff reveal that claimant had appeared before Dr. Anand, a doctor of physical medicine and rehabilitation associated with plaintiff, on both September 19 and October 5, 2006 wherein he presented both times with complaints of neck pain which radiated to the left arm, and numbness and tingling to the left arm. On both occasions Dr. Anand conducted a physiatrics examination of the cervical spine which revealed muscle spasm and associated tenderness to palpation, and a Spurling’s test which was positive on the left. He found the following impressions: cervical sprain/strain; neck and back pain, spasm and r/o cervical radiculopathy – a nerve root problem at the neck with pain going down the arm (Plaintiff s 2). On September 19th Dr. Anand did not recommend that the patient undergo an electro diagnostic evaluation in order to rule out radiculopathy and/or other peripheral nerve damage. However, if the patient’s condition failed to improve with conservative management, reevaluation would be considered. Since September 5, 2006 the claimant had been undergoing physical therapy five times a week consisting of massage, joint mobilization, therapeutic exercise, ultrasound, hot packs and electrical stimulation.

On October 5, 2006, however, Anand recommended that the claimant undergo an electro diagnostic evaluation, including an electromyography (“EMG”) and nerve conduction velocity (“NCV”) of the region and bilateral upper extremities in order to rule out radiculopathy and/or other peripheral nerve damage. The impression of the electro diagnostic study, conducted on October 5, 2006, revealed evidence of C5-C6 radiculopathy on the left and active denervation in the left C5-C6 innervated musculature and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome affecting sensory and motor components. Dr. Anand recommended continued chiropractic care for the involved spinal areas.

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 N.Y.S., 2d 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). The quantum of proof necessary to meet defendant’s burden, at the bare minimum, is to “establish a factual basis and medical rationale for the lack of medical necessity of plaintiff’s services.” Id. See also, A.B. Medical Services, supra .

Defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Joseph C. Cole who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Cole conducted a peer review by reviewing a number [*3]of medical records or reports as listed in his peer review letter (defendant’s 2). Dr. Cole first described the EMG test which consists of putting a subcutaneous electrode or needle into the skin and recording abnormal electrical activity of the muscles and nerves. The NCV consists of stimulating a part of the body to measure the distance and velocity.

Dr. Cole stated in his peer review letter that it was the “standard of care” to order electro diagnostic testing only when the results of such test would benefit the patient more so than a detailed history and physical exam would. He also testified that the American Association of Electro Diagnostic Medicine (“AAEM”) guidelines reflect that EMG/NCV testing should only be used as an extension of a detailed history and physical examination, and only when the “results of the test would be expected to affect treatment” (Tr, 5).

Dr. Cole opined that the EMG/NCV test was not medically necessary because based on his review of the records he could not discern, “regardless of the results of the test”, how the test would have benefitted the patient any more so than a detailed patient history and physical examination would have (Tr. 4).He found that the history and physical examination findings did not substantiate the performance of such tests and would not be necessary prior to the continuation of conservative physical therapy or chiropractic care. He also opined that a physical exam of the muscles to see if there were spasms and a neurological exam would have benefitted the claimant as much as the EMG/NCV.

Dr. Cole also disagreed with the use of EMG/NCV testing to rule out radiculopathy since its limitations in evaluating this condition were “well outlined in the literature”. He stated that the AAEM minimonograph No.32 ( not submitted into evidence) reflects that EMG/NCV testing is not “the test of choice” as a screening tool for radiculopathy since it can’t be used to exclude radiculopathy even if there is a finding of normal. Furthermore, “cervical radiculopathy is diagnosed everyday in medicine with an EMG”. (Tr. 7)

Dr. Cole also acknowledged that Dr. Anand did not initially request an electro diagnostic test as he wanted to see if the patient would improve with conservative care, i.e. physical therapy and chiropractic care. He also acknowledged that on October 5, 2006 the claimant still was complaining of pain to the arm, weakness at the biceps and neck pain with radiation ideation and that the Spurling test was positive. (Tr.10). Additionally, there was a decreased range of motion of the cervical spine between the two reports so that the patient had not improved at all.

Dr. Cole admitted that the function of an electro diagnostic exam was to localize nerve tensions as accurately as possible and that the EMG/NCV was the “gold standard” in that (Tr. 11). He also agreed that establishing a specific diagnosis is important in the effective management of an individual who presents with a complaint of lower back pain and that an individualized electro diagnostic study was an extension of a detailed history and physical exam and could be useful and important in the proper evaluation of an individual with back pain. He stated that an EMG/NCV could help localize nerve root lesions as could a physical examination. [*4]Dr. Cole agreed with the statement in a 1999 AAEM article – chapter 9 “Practice Parameters for Needle Electromyographic Evaluation” (plaintiff’s 3) which noted that “a needle EMG is widely regarded as the technique of choice in the diagnostic evaluation of cervical radiculopathy.” This article also stated that “(b)ased on a critical review of the literature, electro diagnostic evaluation is found to be moderately sensitive and highly specific in establishing a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy.”

The court then asked what it believed to be the crux of the issue – why would an expert conclude that the electro diagnostic study would be of no benefit to the plaintiff when there had been no subsiding of the pain over time and why would the test not assist the doctors in diagnosing why the pain still existed (Tr. 16). Dr. Cole responded that as of September 19th the patient had been diagnosed with radiculopathy and that “this diagnosis is made everyday without EMG” and that in this case the EMG would not add to or enhance the care.” (Tr. 16). The doctor then confirmed that regardless of the results of the test, there would be no change in treatment (Tr. 17).

This court finds that the defendant’s proof fails to prima facie demonstrate the lack of medical necessity for the treatment in question. Fatally missing from the doctor’s testimony is any mention of the applicable generally accepted medical/professional standard and the plaintiff’s departure therefrom. In the leading case of Services v. Travelers Indemnity, Citywide Social Work & Psychological, 3 Misc 3d 608, 609 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004), Justice Battaglia succinctly stated:

“A no-fault insurer defending a denial of first-party benefits on the ground that the billed-for-services were not medically necessary’ must at least show that the services were inconsistent with generally accepted medical/professional practice. The opinion of the insurers’s expert, standing alone, is insufficient to carry the burden of proving that the services were not medically necessary”.

See , Acupuncture Prime Care v. State Farm Mutual Auto, supra .A generally accepted medical/professional practice has been defined as “that range of practice that the professional will follow in the diagnosis and treatment of patients in light of the standards and values that define its calling.” 3 Misc 3d at 616.; A.B. Medical Services , P.L.L.C., supra .

In order to find that a treatment or service is not medically necessary, the 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.” Fifth Avenue Pain Control Center v. Allstate Insurance Co.,196 Misc 2d 801, 807-08 (Civil Ct. Queens Co. 2003). The insurer’s expert’s reliance solely on his peer review report will be insufficient to disprove medical necessity. Id, See, A.R. Medical Art, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto, 11 Misc 3d 1075A, 815 NYS2d 493 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2006).

In fact, an AAEM publication issued one year after the AAEM minimonograph #

32 cited by Dr. Cole is diametrically opposed to Cole ‘s position that the electro diagnostic test is [*5]not medically necessary since it states that a ” (a) needle EMG is widely regarded as the technique of choice in the diagnostic evaluation of cervical radiculopathy.” Dr. Cole’s testimony that the test could serve no purpose is belied by the fact that the treating physician did initially recommend conservative management of the claimant’s condition by continuing with a regimen of physical therapy. The treating physician also performed physical exams on two occasions before ordering the test. It was only after the claimant’s injuries did not improve over a span of over a month that Dr. Anand recommended that the insured undergo electro diagnosis for the purpose of ruling out radiculopathy or other nerve damage. In fact, Dr. Cole admitted that an individualized electro diagnostic study was an extension of a detailed history and physical exam and that the symptoms that the insured was exhibiting could be indicative of conditions other than radiculopathy, for example, carpel tunnel syndrome.

In a case somewhat analogous to the instant matter, Dr. Cole offered similar testimony that the EMG/NCV test was not medically necessary since the patient was improving and the physical examination and history could readily determine that the assignor was suffering from radiculopathy, thus making the need for the testing redundant. A.R. Medical Art, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual, supra . There, as in the instant matter, the plaintiff offered no testimony to rebut Dr. Cole but rather the parties stipulated into evidence the letter of medical necessity for the NCV/EMG from a doctor employed by the assignee’s medical office. The court noted that the positions between the treating physician and Dr. Cole were contradictory and that the assignee’s doctor had used the electro diagnostic testing in light of the patient’s complaints to make an exact diagnosis, locate a possible lesion, determine the extent of injury and exclude possible conditions. The court ruled that: “in the face of a course of treatment that has not been shown to have no medical purpose or performed towards no medical objective, this Court is not prepared to second guess a treating doctor who decides that a medical test is necessary for his/her medical diagnosis and treatment.”

This ruling applies with even greater force here where there was no evidence that the insured was improving from the conservative treatment recommended by the treating physician. Furthermore, only after two physical exams did the treating physician order the test to rule out radiculopathy.

In summary, Dr. Cole’s testimony failed to demonstrate the lack of medical necessity and judgment is rendered accordingly in favor of the plaintiff.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:March 5, 2008

Staten Island, NYHon. Katherine A. Levine

Judge, Civil Court

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

023996/06

Counsel for Plaintiff:Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock

& Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Counsel for Defendant:Samuel G. Lesman, Esq.

Melli, Guerin & Wall, P.C.

17 Battery Place

Suite 610

New York, NY 10004

212-509-6300

Katherine A. Levine, J.

In the instant matter the assignor Maria Tavarez (“Tavarez” or “claimant”) of plaintiff American Chinese Acupuncture, P.C. (“plaintiff”), was allegedly injured in an automobile accident on or about December 21, 2003. Tavarez assigned the cost of her six sessions of acupuncture treatment, in the amount of $257.04, to plaintiff health care provider. At the trial held on January 9, 2008, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and defendant’s timely denial of the claim. Therefore, the only issue presented to the court was whether the six sessions of acupuncture sessions in March 2004 were medically necessary.

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 v. NY Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 1018(A), 801 N.Y.S., 2d 229 (Civil Ct. Kings. Co. 2005); Citywide Social Work & Psychological Services v. Travelers Indemnity, 3 Misc 3d 608, 609 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004).

The parties stipulated into evidence the verification of treatment form (“NF3”) which indicated that Tavarez’s diagnosis and concurrent conditions were pain – neck (cervicalgia) and pain – low back (lumbalgia). Defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Joseph Kalangie who is a diplomate and board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Kalangie performed an independent medical examination (“IME”) upon Tavarez approximately six weeks after her accident. The claimant informed him that several days after the accident she sought medical treatment due to headaches, pain in the neck, lower back and both shoulders. She also indicated she was placed on a regimen of physical therapy and other treatments, including acupuncture four times a week. She indicated that she currently had headaches, pain in the [*2]lower back and pain in both shoulders.

Dr. Kalangie’s IME of Tavarez revealed that the cervical and lumbar strain/sprain, as well as the bilateral shoulder contusion, had resolved. Specifically, the doctor examined the cervical spine and found no sensory deficit or motor weakness of the upper extremities. There was no complaint of any radiation of pain. He also examined both shoulders and found normal rotation and no instability of the joints Finally, he examined the lumbosacral spine and found no complaints of tenderness and normal range of motion and no atrophy.

Based on his examination he opined that treatment had been reasonable, related and necessary from a physiastrist point of view and that there was no need for further chiropractic care and acupuncture treatment. Since all the alleged injuries due to the accident had been resolved, there was no need for any type of further formal treatment.

On cross examination, Dr. Kalangie stated that he was not a licensed acupuncturist and he does not perform and has no training in acupuncture. He opined that acupuncture provides relief to pain and admitted that Tavarez was complaining of pain.He did not have her medical records at the time of the exam and did not request the records even though he could have. He does, however, review other medical records when he himself is the treating physician of patients in auto accidents. 25-30% of his income is derived from peer reviews and IMEs. In 75% of the cases he does not find medical necessity.He typically spends 20-30 minutes on an IME.

In response to questions posed by the court, the doctor indicated that pain is subjective and that his findings as to the shoulders and spine were objective. He did not assess the complaints of headaches since that was outside of his realm of expertise.

Defendant contends that it has proven lack of medical necessity and it therefore is not responsible for the $257.00 charged by plaintiff. It pointed out that plaintiff offered no rebuttal. Plaintiff posits a number of grounds as to why the doctor’s testimony should not be credited, only one of which this court finds determinative: that the doctor is under an obligation to state the generally accepted medical practice and expertise in treating claimant and how plaintiff deviated from this practice.

This court finds that the defendant’s proof fails to prima facie demonstrate the lack of medical necessity for the treatment in question. Fatally missing from the doctor’s testimony is any mention of the applicable generally accepted medical/professional standard and the plaintiff’s departure therefrom. In the leading case of Services v. Travelers Indemnity, Citywide Social Work & Psychological, 3 Misc 3d 608, 609 ( Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2004), Justice Battaglia succinctly stated:

“A no-fault insurer defending a denial of first-party benefits on the

ground that the billed-for-services were not medically necessary’

must at least show that the services were inconsistent with [*3]

generally accepted medical/professional practice. The opinion

of the insurers’s expert, standing alone, is insufficient to carry the

burden of proving that the services were not medically necessary.”

See , Acupuncture Prime Care v. State Farm Mutual Auto, supra .A generally accepted medical/professional practice has been defined as “that range of practice that the professional will follow in the diagnosis and treatment of patients in light of the standards and values that define its calling.” 3 Misc 3d at 616.; A.B. Medical Services , P.L.L.C., supra .

Although acupuncture, physical therapy, and chiropractic are distinct modalities of treatment, they could conceivably be used to treat the same condition. Rose Med. Acupuncture Servs. P.C. v. Specialized Risk Mgmt., 2004 NY Slip Op 51078U, 4 Misc 3d 1027A, 798 NYS2d 348 (City Court, Mt. Vernon, 2004). See, Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. v Lumbermens MutualCasualty Co., 195 Misc 2d 352, 758 NYS2d 795 (Civ Ct. Queens Co. 2003). Thus, where the insurer and medical provider disagree on what should be classified as concurrent care, and a denial is then issued, the dispute should be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for final resolution on this pivotal issue (See id.).

Here, Dr. Kalangie did not posit that acupuncture and physical therapy constituted concurrent care. Nor did he even address how he would treat Tavarez’s complaints of headaches and why acupuncture could not alleviate the subjective pain that she allegedly was suffering. The conclusory opinion of Dr. Kalangie, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of medical necessity.

In conclusion, the court grants judgment in favor of plaintiff.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:February 6, 2008

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 Plaintiff:Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock

& Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

516-741-4799

Counsel for Defendant:Samuel G. Lesman, Esq.

Melli, Guerin & Wall, P.C.

17 Battery Place

Suite 610

New York, NY 10004

212-509-6300

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, October 2, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossmanfass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff. Cambio, Votto, Cassata & Gullo, Staten Island, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

The issue presented in this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits is how attorney’s fees should be calculated in an action that involves multiple assignors and the submission of multiple bills on different dates.

Factual Background:

The trial of this action was scheduled to begin on April 26, 2006. At that time, the parties entered into a written stipulation settling all aspects of the action except for the issue of attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, defendant agreed to pay a specified portion of each of the 21 bills that were in dispute. The bills were submitted on behalf of three assignors and each bill was submitted on a different date.

Plaintiff maintains that, for each bill, he is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the amount of the bill, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum of $850, whichever amount is greater. Defendant maintains that, for each assignor, plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the aggregate amount of all the bills that were submitted on behalf of that assignor, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum of $850.

For the following reasons, the court agrees with defendant.

Discussion:

The no-fault regulation that governs awards of attorney’s fees is 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section,^[FN1] the minimum attorney’s fee payable pursuant to this Subpart shall be $60.” 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (e) provides, in pertinent part, that

“[f]or all other disputes subject to arbitration, subject to the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (c) of this section, the attorney’s fee shall be limited as follows: 20 percent of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest thereon, awarded by the arbitrator or court, subject to a maximum fee of $850. . . .”

On October 8, 2003, the New York State Insurance Department issued an opinion letter interpreting 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e) (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-04 [2003]). The precise question addressed by the New York State Insurance Department in the opinion letter was:

“When an assignee No-Fault provider submits bills for health services rendered to an eligible injured person to that person’s insurer, and such bills are either denied or partially paid and the provider thereafter initiates a court action to contest the denials of the multiple bills which results in a payment award to the provider, is the provider entitled to a minimum attorney’s fee of $60 for each denied bill now required to be paid, or is the proper amount of attorney’s fees based upon the aggregate sum of all bills awarded reimbursement by the Court in the single action that was commenced?” (Emphasis added.)

The New York State Insurance Department answered the question as follows:

“The minimum amount of attorney’s fees awarded to an assignee health provider who has prevailed in a court action brought against a No-Fault insurer is based upon the aggregate amount of payment required to be reimbursed based upon the amount awarded for each bill which had been submitted and denied. The minimum attorney fee amount of $60 is not due and owing for each bill submitted as part of the total amount of the disputed claim sought in the court action.” (Emphasis added.)

The Department of Insurance concluded that court-initiated actions to resolve payment disputes come within the purview of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (e) since such disputes are “subject to arbitration” in that the provider had the option to seek a resolution of the dispute by submitting it for no-fault arbitration in the first instance. It went on to reason:

“Section 65-4.6(e) makes it clear that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded will be based upon 20% of the total amount of first party benefits awarded. That total amount is derived from the total amount of individual bills disputed in either a court action or arbitration, regardless of whether one bill or multiple bills are presented as part of a total claim for benefits, based upon the health services rendered by a provider to the same eligible insured.” (Emphasis added.)

Pursuant to section 65-4.6 (e), the total amount due the attorney will be derived by calculating 20% of the total claim which is resolved in favor of the applicant, which amount is totaled from the total amount of disputed bills which are submitted on behalf of the applicant. This total amount is subject to a cap of $850. Where 20% of the total claim awarded results in an amount less than $60, the attorney is entitled to the minimum $60 fee pursuant to section 65-4.6 (c). Since the 20% calculation is based upon benefits awarded from the total number of disputed bills [*3]in a court action commenced, an attorney would not be entitled to a $60 fee for each disputed bill which is resolved in favor of the applicant.

It is well settled that an administrative agency’s construction and interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to the greatest weight (Matter of Herzog v Joy, 74 AD2d 372, 375 [1st Dept 1980], affd 53 NY2d 821 [1981]; Matter of Tommy & Tina, Inc. v Department of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 95 AD2d 724, 724 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 671 [1984]). If an administrative agency’s interpretation of one of its own regulations is neither irrational nor unreasonable nor counter to the clear wording of a statutory provision, it should be upheld (Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 333 [1996]; Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]; see also, Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins. of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 753, 761-762 [1988]).

11 NYCRR 65-4.6 was promulgated by the Department of Insurance, the administrative agency empowered to implement and interpret the No-Fault Law (see Ostrer v Schenck, 41 NY2d 782 [1977]; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863 [2003]; Breen v Cunard Lines S. S. Co., 33 NY2d 508, 511 [1974]; Insurance Law § 301). In the court’s view, its interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 was neither irrational, unreasonable nor counter to any statutory provision.^[FN2] Plaintiff’s suggestion that opinion letters issued by administrative agencies carry little weight is without merit (see, e.g. Matter of New York State Assn. of Life Underwriters v New York State Banking Dept., 190 AD2d 338, 342-343 [3d Dept 1993], affd 83 NY2d 353 [1994] [holding that deference had to be given to an opinion letter issued by the New York State Banking Department which interpreted Banking Law § 96 unless the interpretation was irrational or unreasonable]; see also Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 73, 75 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50693[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; Bronx Med. Servs., P.C. v Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51022[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2003]).^[FN3]

Plaintiff’s contention that the holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (207 AD2d 338, 339 [2d Dept 1994]) and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance [*4]Co. of N. Am. (208 AD2d 501, 501-502 [2d Dept 1994]) are dispositive of the issues before the court is also without merit. At issue in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. was the interplay between 11 NYCRR former 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and 11 NYCRR former 65.17 (b) (6) (v), the predecessor no-fault regulations to 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e). 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) provided: “Except as provided in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, the minimum attorney’s fee payable pursuant to this section shall be $60.” 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) provided, in pertinent part, as follows: “For all other disputes subject to AAA and IDA arbitrations, subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of this paragraph, the attorney’s fee shall be limited as follows: 20 percent of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest thereon, awarded by the arbitrator or court, subject to a maximum fee of $850.”

In both Smithtown Gen. Hosp.^[FN4] and Hempstead Gen. Hosp.^[FN5] the Court interpreted 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and (v) as requiring awards of attorney’s fees to be calculated on a “per claim” basis. Plaintiff contends that since the language of 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii) and (v) is virtually identical to the language of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and (e), the holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. are controlling. The court disagrees. The holdings in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. and Hempstead Gen. Hosp. have little bearing on the precise issue presented here, whether the court should defer to the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. This issue was not before the Court in either Smithtown Gen. Hosp. or Hempstead Gen. Hosp. Indeed, at the time those cases were decided, the Department of Insurance had yet to interpret 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 or the predecessor regulations governing attorney’s fee awards.

Further, defendant correctly points out that the holding in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. is not at all inconsistent with the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6. [*5]While the Court in Smithtown Gen. Hosp. held that attorney’s fees should be calculated on a “per claim” basis, the complaint^[FN6] filed in Smithtown reflects that each of the 21 claims at issue in the action was submitted on behalf of a different assignor. The holding is therefore perfectly consistent with the Department of Insurance’s view, as stated in the opinion letter, that attorney’s fee awards should be based on “the total amount of individual bills disputed in either a court action or arbitration, regardless of whether one bill or multiple bills are presented as part of a total claim for benefits, based upon the health services rendered by a provider to the same eligible insured” (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-08 [emphasis added]).^[FN7]

For all of the above reasons, the court adopts the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 and holds that for each assignor in the action, plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee in the amount of $60 or 20% of the total amount of the first-party benefits awarded for services provided to that assignor, plus interest thereon, whichever amount is greater, subject to a maximum of $850.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered in plaintiff’s favor in accordance with the stipulation of settlement together with interest and attorney’s fees, as provided for under the No-Fault Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as costs and disbursements.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Neither of these subdivisions apply in this case.

Footnote 2: The only statutory provision dealing with attorney’s fees under the No-Fault Law is Insurance Law § 5106 (a), which, in pertinent part, provides that “[i]f a valid claim [for first-party benefits] or portion was overdue, the claimant shall also be entitled to recover his attorney’s reasonable fee, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment of the overdue claim, subject to limitations promulgated by the superintendent in regulations.”

Footnote 3: In Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C., S & M Supply and Bronx Med. Servs., P.C., the various Appellate Terms held that the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of a regulation as articulated in an advisory “Circular Letter” is entitled to great deference. The court sees no reason why the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of a regulation as articulated in an opinion letter should be treated differently.

Footnote 4: In Smithtown, the Court stated:

“Concerning attorneys’ fees, once a court action has been commenced, 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) grants an attorneys’ fee on no-fault insurance claims of 20% of the amount of first-party benefits awarded plus interest, with a ceiling of $850 per claim. Further, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii), with certain exceptions not here applicable, there is a minimum fee of $60 on each such claim. Here, although the court awarded attorneys’ fees, it failed to follow the formula provided under 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v), incorrectly interpreted the $850 ceiling to apply to the entire action, rather than to each claim, and failed to set a minimum fee of $60 per claim. Accordingly, upon remittitur, the Supreme Court is directed to calculate the attorneys’ fee due in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v), and (iii)” (207 AD2d at 339 [emphasis added]).

Footnote 5: In Hempstead General Hosp., the Court stated:

“Once an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits has been commenced, 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) grants attorney’s fees of 20% of the amount of the first-party benefits awarded, plus interest, with a ceiling of $850 per claim. . . . Further, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (iii), with certain exceptions not applicable to this case, there is a minimum fee of $60 per claim. Accordingly, upon remittitur, the Supreme Court is directed to calculate the attorney’s fees due in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65.17 (b) (6) (v) and (iii)” (208 AD2d at 501 [emphasis added]).

Footnote 6: Defendant provided the court with a copy of the complaint in support of its position.

Footnote 7: Whether the holding in Hempstead Gen. Hosp. conflicts with the Department of Insurance’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 remains unclear.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

8104/06

Attorney for Plaintiff, Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. (In Both cases):

Gregory Cherchione, Esq.

2444 Broadway, Suite 362

New York, NY 10024

Tel.: (212) 285-3800

Attorneys for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (In Both Actions):

Burke, Lipton Puleo, McCarthy & Gordon

10 Bank Street, Suite 1040

White Plains, NY 10606

Tel.: (914) 997-8100

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moves for an order changing the venue of this action to Bronx County.

The venue provision of the Civil Court Act that governs transitory actions is Civil Court Act § 301. Civil Court Act § 301[a], as it pertains to the issue at hand, provides that “an action. . . shall be brought in . . .the county in which one of the parties resides at the commencement thereof.” Defendant contends that plaintiff improperly set venue in Richmond because neither plaintiff nor the defendant are residents of Richmond County.

In support of its contention that plaintiff is not a resident of Richmond County, defendant annexed various medical records indicating that plaintiff’s assignor resides in Bronx County. “If the plaintiff is an assignee of the cause of action, the original owner of the cause of action shall be deemed the plaintiff for the purpose of determining proper venue” (Civil Court Act § 305[a] ).

In support of its contention that defendant is not a Richmond County resident, defendant submitted the affidavit of one of its claims managers who stated that “Liberty does not have any claims, sales or offices of any kind in Richmond County, NY All no-fault bills are submitted to the New York State No-Fault office in Suffolk County.” The nearest claims office is in Nassau County. The nearest sales office to Richmond County is located in Kings County at 4201 Avenue M in Brooklyn. The nearest legal office is in New York County.”

Under the Civil Court Act, “[a] corporation . . . shall be deemed a resident of any county wherein it transacts business, keeps an office, has an agency or is established by law ” (Civil Court Act § 305[b]). The issue presented, as the court sees it, is whether defendant’s submissions demonstrated that defendant does not “transact business” within Richmond County within the meaning of (Civil Court Act § 305[b]). The Court holds that they do did not.

Defendant’s submissions did not foreclose the very distinct possibility that defendant issues insurance policies covering Richmond County residents. Likewise, defendant’s [*2]submissions did not foreclose the distinct possibility that defendant engaged in purposeful activity in Richmond County by regularly corresponding, by mail and/or telephone, with its policy holders in Richmond County by delivering insurance policies, sending invoices and seeking and collecting premiums from them. These acts, in the court’s view, would be sufficient to establish that defendant transacts business in Richmond County (see Mingmen Acupuncture Services, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 183 Misc 2d 270, 280 [Civ. Ct, Bronx County, 1999, Victor, J.]; Neurologic Services, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 183 Misc 2d 496, 498 [Civil Ct., Bronx County 1999, Ruiz, J.]; see also Rung v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 139 AD2d 914, 915 [4th Dep ‘t 1988] ). The court respectfully disagrees with the opposite result reached in Quality Medical Healthcare, P.C. v. American Transit Ins. Co., 182 Misc 2d 991 [Sup. Ct., Bronx County, 1999, Brigantti-Hughes, J.].

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s motion is in all respects DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 22, 2006_____________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

Civil Court, Richmond County

005741/05

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5101 et seq to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical service provided to its Assignors, Guillermo Rios and Criselda Rodriquez.

The trial of the action took place on April 12, 2006. Neither party called a witness. To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff relied solely upon defendant’s failure to respond to a notice to admit it was served on November 30, 2005 pursuant to CPLR 3123(a).

The notice to admit requested admissions of the following facts:

1.The defendant received the claim(s) for No-Fault benefits that are the subject of this action.

2.The defendant received the N-F-3 Verification of Treatment Form(s) that are the subject of this action.

3.The defendant received the bill(s) that are the subject of this action.

4. The defendant has not paid the bill(s), claim(s), and/or N-F-3 referenced in 1 through 3 above.

5.The defendant received an Assignment of Benefits Forms(s) for the claims that are the subject of this action.

7.The defendant did not mail requests for verification to the plaintiff for the claims that are the subject of this action.

8.The defendant issued a policy of insurance covering the vehicle plaintiff’s assignor was in at the time of the motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff did not annex to the notice to admit copies of the bills, claims, and/or N-F-3s and requested and admissions as to their genuineness as CPLR 3123(a) permits. Further, the bills, [*2]claims, and/or N-F-3s were not received in evidence during the trial.

Plaintiff maintained that by failing to respond to the notice to admit, defendant admitted to the truth of all the facts alleged therein and that these facts were sufficient to make out a prima facie case.

Defendant maintained that it was not obligated to respond to the notice to admit since it was vague and ambiguous and sought admissions of ultimate issues of fact. Defendant further maintained that plaintiff was required to introduce the bills, claims, and/or N-F-3s into evidence to make out a prima facie case.

Discussion:

Defendant’s contention that it did not have to respond to the notice to admit is without merit. Plaintiff properly used the notice to admit to dispose of what it believed to be uncontroverted questions of facts which would have been easily provable at trial (The Hawthorne Group, LLC v. RRE Ventures, 7 AD3d 320, 324 [1st Dep’t 2004]; see also Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc. v. Cicchiello, 273 AD2d 6 [1st Dep’t 2000]; Samsung America, Inc. v. Yugoslav Korean Consulting & Trading Co.,199 AD2d 48 [1st Dep’t 1993] ). The notice to admit removed “from the case those uncontested matters which would [have] merely present[ed] a time-consuming burden at trial” (Villa v. New York City Housing Authority, 107 AD2d 619-620 [1st Dep’t 1985] ).

While a party is not obligated to furnish admissions in response to a notice to admit that improperly demands admissions of ultimate and fundamental issues that can only be resolved after a full trial or matters that are in actual dispute (see, Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc. v. Cicchiello 273 AD2d 6, 6; [1st Dep’t 2000]; Orellana v. City of New York, 203 AD2d 542, 543 [2nd Dep’t 1994]; Miller v. Hilman Kelly Co.,177 AD2d 1036, 1037 [4th Dep’t 1991] ), “[a]ll of the items in the notice to admit involve[d] clear-cut factual matters about which one would reasonably anticipate no dispute, and the immediate disposition of which would not unfairly prejudice the defendant and would help to expedite the trial” (Risucci v. Homayoon, 122 AD2d 260, 261 [2nd Dep’t 1986], citing , CPLR 3123[a]; Villa v. New York City Housing Auth., 107 AD2d 619, 620 [1st Dep’t 1985] ). That fact that a notice to admit will establish plaintiff’s prima facie case on paper does not bar its use (id.).

Simply because defendant denied many of the facts alleged in the notice to admit in its answer to plaintiff’s complaint did not establish that those facts were in actual dispute. To hold otherwise would preclude a plaintiff from requesting admissions of any fact initially denied by a defendant in its answer. If defendant actually disputed any of the facts alleged in the notice to admit, it should have submitted a timely response denying them.

The court rejects defendant’s contention that the notice to admit was vague and/or ambiguous.

Inasmuch as defendant did not respond to the notice to admit within 20 days, defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the facts alleged therein (CPLR 3123[a] ).

Notwithstanding the above, the court agrees with defendant that plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case. In A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 50432[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists], the court held that “[b]y failing to append the necessary claim forms to their motion papers, plaintiffs did not establish their prima facie case” (see, also, Patil v. Countrywide Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op. 50306(U) [App Term, 9th & 10th [*3]Jud Dists]; Maldonado v. Steiner, 2005 NY Slip Op. 51905(U) [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] ). It necessarily follows that to make out a prima facie case at trial, copies of the NF-3 claim forms or their functional equivalent must be received in evidence for the purpose of demonstrating exactly what was sent to and received by the defendant. In the instant case, neither the N-F-3s nor their functional equivalent were received in evidence nor did plaintiff annex them to the notice to admit and request an admissions as to their genuineness.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the action.

Dated: July 3, 2006_____________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 22, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola, for plaintiff. Bruno Gerbino & Macchia, LLP, Melville, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

This action to recover first-party no-fault benefits presents a novel issue. After receiving each of the disputed claims, defendant made timely requests for additional verification thereby tolling the 30-day period in which it had to pay or deny the claims. When plaintiff did not provide the verification, defendant made an additional request for the verification 28 calendar days later. When plaintiff failed to provide the verification, defendant denied the claims citing plaintiff’s failure to provide the verification as its only defense. The issue presented is whether, under these circumstances, defendant’s denials of claim, all of which were issued more than 30 days after it received the claims, were timely. The court concludes that they were not.

Factual Background

This action involves three claims for first-party no-fault benefits totaling $5,698.45 for electrodiagnostic testing of plaintiff’s two assignors. The trial of the action was scheduled for April 19, 2006. At that time, the parties waived their right to a trial and agreed to submit the matter to the court for resolution based on stipulated facts. The parties stipulated that defendant received each of the claims on February 13, 2003; that on February 25, 2003, defendant requested additional verification of each claim, i.e.—a letter of medical necessity from the referring physician; that on March 25, 2003, defendant made a second request for the same verification; that the requested verification was never provided; and that on January 26, 2004, defendant denied each of the claims citing plaintiff’s failure to provide verification as its only defense. The claim forms, an assignment of benefits for each assignor, defendant’s first and second requests for verification and defendant’s denials of claim were all stipulated into evidence.

Defendant maintains that it properly denied the claims and that it is therefore entitled to judgment dismissing the action.

Plaintiff maintains that while defendant’s initial requests for additional verification were timely and tolled the 30-day period in which defendant had to pay or deny the claims, the toll was eviscerated when defendant failed to send out a follow-up request for the additional verification within the 10-day time period specified in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b). Plaintiff correctly points out that defendant mailed out the second requests only 28 days after the first requests had been [*2]mailed. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), defendant was required to wait at least 30 calendar days before it re-requested the verification.

Discussion

It is well settled that an insurer is required to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days after the claimant provides proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]) and that its failure to do so will preclude it from raising most defenses to the claim (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 90 NY2d at 282).

An insurer may extend the 30-day period in which it has to pay or deny a claim by making a request for additional verification of the claim “within 15 business days of receipt [of one] of the prescribed verification forms” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; see also Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 27 AD3d 96 [2d Dept 2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2d Dept 2002]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 699, 700 [2d Dept 2001]). If the verification is not provided 30 calendar days after the original request, “[a]t a minimum . . . the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call, properly documented in the file, or by mail” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]).

In Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431, 432 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]), the Court addressed the consequences of an insurer’s failure to seek additional verification of a claim in compliance with the no-fault regulations then in effect. The defendant in that case timely requested that plaintiff provide a copy of the hospital record of its assignor as additional verification of the claim. When plaintiff did not provide the hospital record within 30 calendar days, defendant did not do any of the follow-up required by 11 NYCRR former 65.15 (e) (2), which, in relevant part, provided:

“At a minimum, if any 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 originally requested, either by a telephone call, properly documented in the file, or by mail.”

Although plaintiff ultimately provided the hospital record, defendant did not receive it until more than 30 days had elapsed since the claim was submitted. The hospital record indicated that plaintiff’s assignor was intoxicated at the time of accident and based on the record, defendant denied the claim asserting the intoxication of plaintiff’s assignor as a defense.

In affirming the judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor in the court below, the Appellate Division for the Second Department concluded that defendant was precluded from raising intoxication as a defense inasmuch as defendant denied the claim more than 30 days after its receipt. The Court based its decision on the principle that “[w]hen an insurance company fails to comply with its duty to act expeditiously in processing no-fault claims, it will be precluded from raising most defenses” (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432 [citation omitted]). The Court reasoned that by failing to do the follow-up required by 11 NYCRR former 65.15 (e) (2), which it concluded had to be “strictly construed” (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432), defendant did not act diligently in processing the claim (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 433 [citations omitted]).

The courts have consistently followed the holding in Presbyterian (see King’s Med. Supply v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50450[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Bronx Med. Servs., P.C. v Windsor Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 50885[U] [App [*3]Term,1st Dept]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 145[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50140[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

This case is not on all fours with Presbyterian or the other cases cited above. In all of those cases, when the plaintiff failed to provide the verification that had been requested, the defendant did not do any follow-up whatsoever. Here, defendant did follow up but not within the 10-day period specified in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b). While defendant certainly acted more diligently in processing the claims than the defendant in Presbyterian or the other cases cited above, it did not strictly adhere to the dictates of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), nonetheless. The court must be guided by the principle that the no-fault regulations are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 432; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Atlanta Cas. Co., 210 AD2d 210, 211 [2d Dept 1994]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]).

The clear language of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) required defendant to follow up with the plaintiff for the verification at least once in the 10-day period specified therein. This defendant clearly did not do so. The court finds that when defendant failed to follow up as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), the toll occasioned by defendant’s initial requests for verification dissipated ab initio. Thus, it necessarily follows that defendant’s denials of claim, all of which were issued more than 30 days after defendant received the claims, were untimely as a matter of law. Defendant was precluded from raising most defenses, including the defense asserted in each of its denials.

Having established that it submitted the claims setting forth the fact and the amounts of the loss sustained and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount sued for (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that judgment be entered in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $5,698.45, together with interest and attorneys’ fees as provided for under the No-Fault Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as costs and disbursements.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, June 9, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sanders, Grossman, Fass & Muhlstock P.C., Mineola, for plaintiff. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano LLP, Melville, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the issue presented is whether the testimony of the peer expert called by defendant at trial to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity should have been precluded on the ground that he did not prepare the peer review reports upon which defendant relied in denying the claims. The court holds that since the peer review expert, whose identity had been disclosed to plaintiff prior to trial, was limited to testifying to the facts and opinions contained in the peer review reports defendant relied upon in denying the claims, there was no basis to preclude his testimony.

Facts

Plaintiff SK Medical Services, P.C. commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to three assignors, Mamia Kashia, Zaza Kacharava and Malkhaz Gvaladze. All three assignors were allegedly injured on December 27, 2002, in the same motor vehicle accident. Each assignor appeared at plaintiff’s facility on January 21, 2003 for a “neurodiagnostic consultation” by Dr. Larisa Tsaur. On the same day, Dr. Tsaur performed essentially identical electrodiagnostic testing on each assignor. The tests included nerve conduction velocity studies and electromyography studies.

Plaintiff submitted four bills to defendant, one in the amount of $3,673.07 for services provided to Mamia Kashia, another in the same amount for services provided to Zaza Kacharava and two bills totaling $3,976.66 for services provided to Malkhaz Gvaladze. Along with each bill, plaintiff submitted a copy of the neurodiagnostic consultation report of Dr. Tsaur.

Upon receipt of the bills, defendant retained Dr. Joseph C. Cole to do a peer review for each submission. Dr. Cole prepared three peer review reports, one for each assignor, and recommended that defendant pay only for the neurodiagnostic consultations. He concluded that the extensive electrodiagnostic testing of plaintiff’s assignors, performed less than a month following the accident, was not medically necessary in light of Dr. Tsaur’s clinical findings.

In accordance with Dr. Cole’s recommendations, defendant paid plaintiff for the [*2]neurodiagnostic consultations and denied the remainder of the bills asserting lack of medical necessity as a defense. Each of defendant’s denials included a copy of the peer review report upon which it was based.

The trial of this action took place on March 2, 2006. At the outset of the trial, the parties stipulated that defendant received the NF-3 claim forms (the bills), which included Dr. Tsaur’s neurodiagnostic consultation reports, and that defendant timely denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity based on Dr. Cole’s peer review reports. The NF-3 claim forms, the neurodiagnostic consultation reports and each of defendant’s denials, which included Dr. Cole’s peer review reports, were stipulated into evidence.

At the time of trial, Dr. Cole was not available to testify. To establish its defense of lack of medical necessity, defendant called Peter Gastaldi, D.C. Plaintiff objected and moved to preclude him from testifying. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that since defendant’s denials of claim were based on Dr. Cole’s peer reviews, defendant was limited to calling Dr. Cole to establish lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff’s counsel further maintained that since defendant never exchanged a copy of Dr. Gastaldi’s peer review report or properly responded to plaintiff’s demand for expert disclosure, Dr. Gastaldi should be precluded from testifying.

Plaintiff’s demand for expert information required defendant to provide

“(a) the name and address of each and every person [defendant] expect[ed] to call as an expert witness at the time of trial of this action; (b) the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify; (c) the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is to testify; (d) the qualifications of each expert; and (e) a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.”

In response, defendant provided Dr. Gastaldi’s name and address but the only information provided as to the particulars of his expected testimony was that he would “be relied upon at trial to provide testimony as to the findings of a lack of medical necessity as set forth in the denial.”

Defendant’s counsel represented that Dr. Gastaldi never prepared a peer review report and that he would testify to the same facts and opinions as set forth in Dr. Cole’s reports. Defendant therefore maintained that plaintiff had no legitimate argument that it would be prejudiced if Dr. Gastaldi were allowed to testify.

The court reserved decision on the motion and permitted Dr. Gastaldi to testify. The court precluded him, however, from testifying to facts or opinions that were not set forth in Dr. Cole’s reports. The court agreed to strike his testimony if plaintiff’s motion were granted.

Discussion

After careful consideration, the court finds that there was no legitimate basis to preclude Dr. Gastaldi from testifying. Each of defendant’s denials of claim, which asserted lack of medical necessity as a defense, was timely issued (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), contained the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2d Dept 2004]), and, with the inclusion of the peer review report upon which it was based, “promptly apprise[d] the claimant[s] with a high degree of specificity of the ground . . . on which [it was] predicated” (General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]; see also, Nyack Hosp., 11 AD3d at 664 [2d Dept 2004]; Keith v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 118 AD2d 151, 153 [2d Dept 1986]). Defendant therefore preserved its right to defend the claims at trial on the [*3]ground of lack of medical necessity for the reasons stated in Dr. Cole’s peer review reports.

While it is true that an insurer may not, after repudiating liability, assert new grounds for its refusal to pay a claim (Han-Ki Lee v American Tr. Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 713, 714 [2003]; Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 836 [1981]) and must “stand or fall upon the defense upon which it based its refusal to pay” (Beckley v Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 190, 194 [1957]; see also, King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 863, 865 [1995]), permitting Dr. Gastaldi to testify did not violate these principles since Dr. Gastaldi was not permitted to assert any new ground justifying defendant’s refusal to pay the claims. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, there is no requirement in the no-fault regulations, or under common law, requiring an insurer to exchange a copy of the report of a peer review expert it intends to call at trial. Although 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (b) (4) requires an insurer upon written demand to provide an applicant, the applicant’s attorney or the applicant’s treating physician with a copy of a peer review report upon which its denial is based, nothing contained in this regulation, nor in any other regulation promulgated under the No-Fault Law, suggests that an insurer is limited to calling the peer expert whose report was exchanged as its expert witness at trial. No plausible argument has been put forth why this court should impose such a limitation. If an insurer wishes to elicit expert testimony at trial to establish the factual basis of a properly asserted defense, it must simply comply with the rules pertaining to expert disclosure.

In this case, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, defendant sufficiently complied with plaintiff’s demand for expert disclosure. In its response, defendant identified Dr. Gastaldi as a potential expert and indicated that he would “be relied upon at trial to provide testimony as to the findings of a lack of medical necessity as set forth in the denial[s].” As stated above, each of defendant’s denials included the report of Dr. Cole upon which it was based, and Dr. Gastaldi was limited to testifying to the facts and opinions contained therein. Accordingly, defendant’s expert disclosure sufficiently set forth “the substance of the facts and opinions on which” the expert was expected to testify (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; see, Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 252 AD2d 946, 946-947 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 817 [1998]) and “demonstrable prejudice or surprise” to the plaintiff had not been shown (Rook v 60 Key Ctr., 239 AD2d 926, 927 [1997]).

For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to preclude is denied.

The court finds Dr. Gastaldi to be a credible witness. His testimony did not go beyond the facts and opinions contained in Dr. Cole’s reports. He gave persuasive testimony that the extensive testing performed on each of plaintiff’s assignors on January 21, 2003 was not medically necessary in light of Dr. Tsaur’s clinical findings. The court credits his testimony in all respects. No witnesses were called by the plaintiff to rebut his testimony. The court therefore finds that defendant established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the testing at issue was not medically necessary.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint.