Infants compromise order not needed to proceed in arbitration in assignee caseJune 3, 2018

Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03831 (2d Dept. 2018)

“We agree with the Supreme Court that the arbitrator’s award was irrational and in conflict with CPLR 1209, which applies “only where an infant is a party” to an arbitration proceeding (Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d 670, 670, affd 19 NY2d 759; see Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123, 127). The infant patient was not a party to the arbitration; rather, Fast Care, as the infant’s assignee, was the party that brought the arbitration (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.11[a]). Therefore, we agree with the court that the arbitrator disregarded established law in determining that the requirements of CPLR 1209 applied here (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d at 127; see Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d at 670). Furthermore, the master arbitrator’s determination that the assignment of benefits was not effective was not based on any requirement set forth in established law or regulations (see generally 11 NYCRR 65-2.4[c]).”

Bonus attorney fees: “Fast Care did not demonstrate its entitlement to an award of an attorney’s fee, as the arbitrator did not reach the issue of whether the subject claims were “overdue””

2 Responses

  1. Bruno Tucker says:

    AAA arbitrator’s no more easy way out.

    • jtlawadmin says:

      Haha. They will find others. We had a hearing this week where the Applicant was given 30 days notice that a witness would come. Applicant objected and the NFA agreed it was insufficient notice. The regulation says 7 days notice, but what is a regulation in the face of occasional expediency? Reminds me of the true rocket docket NFAs and the masters who put the Petrofsky stamp on it.

Leave a Reply