The failure to assert why the signature was stamped will not invalidate an affirmationJuly 8, 2011

Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51230(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)

“In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the first and third causes of action since plaintiff failed to submit an affirmation from a doctor rebutting the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). While plaintiff asserted that Dr. Schechter’s peer review report contained a stamped signature and, as a result, the peer review report was inadmissible, that assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped facsimile signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 27 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50587[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]”

2 Responses

  1. Raymond Zuppa says:

    No problems here. I agree. Just saying it in a conclusory fashion is nonsense. The kind of lazy lawyering that I have come to expect from certain members of the No Fault Plaintiff’s bar — say 90%.

    • JT says:

      It is nice when a Mercury Casualty case is the lead case on point for a proposition of law that makes sense..

Leave a Reply