The future is bright for medical necessity msj's December 28, 2008

Again, this is not necessarily a pure no-fault post. However, this is a no-fault post by analogy. I came across a doosy of a decision and order from the Appellate Division, Second Department. It kind of cuts both ways on two different issues. Hopefully you will see where I am going with this, after you see the excepts I am publishing.

Geffner v North Shore Univ. Hosp.
2008 NY Slip Op 10124 (2d Dept. 2008)

To support her allegations [of medical malpractice and in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment], the plaintiff submitted the expert affidavit of Charles Phillips, a physician certified in emergency medicine. Dr. Phillips’ affidavit was of no probative value, however, as it contained opinions outside his area of expertise and did not establish a foundation for his opinions (see Glazer v Choong-Hee Lee, 51 AD3d 970; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018, 1018-1019; Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047)….

“Finally, the plaintiff submitted the expert affirmations of Howard C. Adelman, a physician certified in clinical pathology and cytopathology, which alleged that the defendant doctors misdiagnosed the decedent as suffering from myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, and adenocarcinoma. Dr. Adelman’s affirmations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the alleged misdiagnoses since they failed to address the evidence relied upon by North Shore’s experts in rendering their opinions that the diagnoses were correct (see Germaine v Yu, 49 AD3d 685, 687; Fhima v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 269 AD2d 559, 560).

Issue #1: Doctors who give opinions outside their scope of expertise.

This is a problem, however, an accounting of their skills and expertise should get one of the trouble that was wrought in this cae

Issue #2: Failure to address movant’s proof.

Big problem in no-fault litigation.

Accelerated Judgment not availabe in criminal proceedings December 26, 2008

Yes, this is a no fault blog that I maintain, mostly for my own amusement. I take pride in the level of scholarship set forth in this blog. I try to avoid topics that do not apply either directly or tangentially to the arena of PIP issues. This will be a rare exception.

In my daily reading of the App. Term criminal cases, I found an interesting issue that has satisfied my curiosity. Likewise, I find the outcome disturbing.

The case that is interesting is entitled: People v Manupelli (Christine), 2008 NY Slip Op 28520 (App. Term 2d Dept. 9th and 10th Jud. Dis. 2008). It says the following:

In this prosecution based on defendants’ alleged violation of local ordinances requiring landfill permits and barring the diversion of rainwater onto neighboring properties, defendants moved pretrial to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Justice Court granted the motion, concluding, in essence, that there was a legal impediment to conviction (CPL 170.30 [1] [f]), finding that defendants’ proof in support of the motion established both their entitlement to an exclusion from the permit requirement and the People’s inability to prove, on the facts, that defendants are legally responsible for the alleged illegal diversion of rainwater onto a neighbor’s property.

Defendants’ motion should have been denied. With rare exceptions (e.g. CPL 60.10), the CPLR is inapplicable to criminal proceedings (CPLR 101; CPL 1.10 [1]; People v Knobel, 94 NY2d 226, 230 [1999]; People v Crisp, 268 AD2d 247 [2000]; People v Silva, 122 AD2d 750 [1986]; see generally People ex rel. Hirschberg v Orange County Court, 271 NY 151, 155 [1936]). The authority of a criminal court to dismiss an information pursuant to a pretrial motion (see CPL 170.30) does not include a motion for accelerated judgment available to civil court litigants (see CPLR 3211, 3212), and, in any event, the court had no authority to dismiss an accusatory instrument on the ground that, in its view, the People could not produce sufficient [*2]evidence to prevail at trial (e.g. People v Asher, 16 Misc 3d 89, 91 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Thus, on this record, there were no grounds to dismiss the accusatory instrument upon defendants’ pretrial motion (see CPL 170.30).

My thought has always been this: why is it that somebody who risks going to prison or ending up with legal impediments attendant to a criminal conviction have markedly less procedural rights than a civil litigant? That has bothered me to no end and, yet in New York, that is the rule. You need not be a criminal attorney to see how wrong this all is. Yet, this is the world we live in.

Food for thought this Christmas.

I was beaten by a fellow blogger on the verification issue… December 26, 2008

I found this story a week before it was brought to life by a fellow blogger, but since the fellow blogger published it first, he gets deserved credit. the name of the case is: Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 21 Misc.3d 1 (App. Term. 2d Dept. 2008).

This was the case involving a premature follow-up additional verification and the preclusion sanction due to this occurring. It is interesting to see the Second Dept taking up this issue. The dissenter at the Appellate Term observed other Appellate Division cases that found the sanction of preclusion unwarranted in this factual scenario. This is probably what lead the App. Div to grant leave as to this issue. As I have learned recently through personal experience in two recent matters, the App. Div. does not like to grant leave to no fault matters and does not like motions to reargue when a non-articulated argument, if properly preserved, would reverse their opinion and order.

That is the only case of interest on the horizon that i have seen lately…

A new day for decisions… December 10, 2008

I have an observation here that I want to share with those who read this – which I think consists of me, myself and I. The decisions in the realm of no-fault have been getting quite redundant. We used to always wait for the next big pronouncement from an appellate court, or even an observation from a lower court. Now, we just look to see when the next breaking or shattering of the status quo will occur.

With the above introduction in mind, now to the cases.

A.M. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
2008 NY Slip Op 28487 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

Failure to properly caption – you better reject that paper within 2-days or you have waived the

Plaintiff argues that the absence of a caption setting forth the name of the court, the venue [*2]and the index number in the 90-day demand rendered it a nullity, as it was not in compliance with CPLR 2101 (c). However, the demand set forth the name of the case, including the name of the assignor, as well as the date of the loss. Consequently, in our opinion, the omissions were merely defects in form to which plaintiff’s counsel could have objected by returning the demand to defendant within two days of its receipt, specifying the nature of the defect (CPLR 2101 [f]). Plaintiff’s failure to do so waived any objection to the defect (see Deygoo v Eastern Abstract Corp., 204 AD2d 596 [1994]). right to challenge that defect.

Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.
2008 NYSlipOp 52466(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

This is another notice to admit case. Nothing special, right? Well, this is the first citing of Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Traveler’s Home & Mar. Ins. Co., ___ AD3d ___, 2008 NY Slip Op 07846 [2d Dept 2008], the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the Dan Medical “business record foundation” cases in order to establish a prima facie case…. Exciting, right?

My last words of the day…

I love the commentary from the Appellate Term on CPLR 2101. Realistically, how many law practices can realistically reject a non-captioned filing within two days of receipt? A better question – how many law practices can reject a “hidden” affidavit that is not captioned within a properly captioned motion within two days of its receipt? I know I cannot – and my practice pales in comparison to that of the larger firms out there – e.g., Baker, Sanders (among others)…

And then there is Art of Healing – vindication to those who have pushed through Dan Medical and its progeny…

Some newer cases November 16, 2008

It has been a real quiet few months in our world of law. Nothing too substantial has come out recently. There have been some procedural cases, which have an effect on all areas of law. Here are some of the cases I have found which have interesting overtones to them:

Stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice = presumption of res judicata

Support Billing & Mgt. Co. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
2008 NYSlipOp 52226(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

“A stipulation of discontinuance which specifies that it is “with prejudice” raises a presumption that the stipulation is to be given res judicata effect in future litigation on the same cause of action”

Discovery on a precluded defense requires proof of a timely denial – timely denial means more than it being facially timely…

Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2008 NYSlipOp 52185(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

“Where a discovery demand concerns matters relating to a defense which a defendant is precluded from raising, it is palpably improper, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff did not specifically object thereto (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC, 11 Misc 3d 71). As defendant did not establish that it timely denied plaintiff’s claims, to the extent defendant seeks discovery in support of its defense of lack of medical necessity, discovery of such precluded matter is palpably improper”

Court sanctions more than one discovery device being demanded simulataneously

First Aid Occupational Therapy, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 51963(U)(App. Term 2d Dept, 2008).

In addition, defendant is entitled to conduct an EBT of plaintiff notwithstanding the fact that defendant also served a demand for discovery and inspection of documents (see Woods v Alexander, 267 AD2d 1060, 1061 [1999]; Iseman v Delmar Med.-Dental Bldg., 113 AD2d 276 [1985]; JMJ Contract Mgt. v Ingersoll-Rand Co., 100 AD2d 291, 293 [1984]).

CCA 1201 – give us a reason for allowing an extraterritorial subpoena

Bronxborough Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.
21 Misc.3d 21 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

Inasmuch as plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish that the interests of justice would be served by permitting plaintiff to serve, outside the City of New York and the adjoining counties, a subpoena which would require defendant’s employee to appear at trial, and, in addition, did not set forth the location at which plaintiff sought to serve the subpoena, plaintiff’s motion was properly denied.

Don’t send the peer or IME upon demand – the courts will forgive you, but the DOI probably will not.

Careplus Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

21 Misc.3d 18 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2008)

In response to a provider seeking to preclude an insurance carrier from raising a defense of lack of medical necessity based upon the pre-suit failure to turn over the peer or IME report in accordance with the regulations, the Appellate Term said no so fast…

“The Insurance Department Regulations provide no sanction for an insurer’s failure to provide a peer review report upon the written{**21 Misc 3d at 20}{**21 Misc 3d at 20} request for one by a provider (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 143[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51415[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). While plaintiff urges the court to impose the sanction of preclusion here, we decline to do so because “[h]ad it been the intent of the Department of Insurance” to impose such a sanction, “it would have so provided”

Do not file a notice of trial without obtaining a final order of preclusion or dismissal, etc.

Iscowitz v. County of Suffolk
54 A.D.3d 725 (2d Dept. 2008)

“The plaintiffs waived any objection to the adequacy and timeliness of the disclosure by filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness prior to moving pursuant to CPLR 3126 for the imposition of a discovery sanction

Preclusion – The Appellate Division spells out why we should not sign preclusion stipulations.

Allen v Calleja
2008 NY Slip Op 08685 (2d Dept. 2008)

To warrant preclusion, “the Supreme Court must determine that the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious” (Assael v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 443, 443; see CPLR 3126[2]; Moog v City of New York, 30 AD3d 490). Such conduct may be found where, for example, a party repeatedly fails to comply with court orders directing it to produce certain discovery without adequate excuses therefor

And when it comes to the inability to invoke “preclusion” based upon a single failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion (when this was the first discovery order in the case), the Appellate Term, First Department said the following:

Pelham Parkway Neuro & Diagnostic, P.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

16 Misc.3d 130(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2007)

In this action to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, the drastic sanction of precluding defendant from asserting its defense of exhaustion of policy limits was unwarranted in the absence of a showing that defendant’s single failure to comply with the parties’ discovery stipulation was willful and contumacious