Matter of Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00500 (1st Dept. 2020)
“Respondent contends that its claims were complete before the policy issued by petitioner was exhausted. This argument is unavailing. The Court of Appeals has interpreted the word “claims” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 to mean “verified claims” (Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, 300 ), i.e., claims as to which the healthcare provider has submitted additional information requested by the insurer (see id. at 297-298, 300-301). Petitioner requested verification in the form of an examination under oath (EUO). Since respondent never appeared for an EUO, its claims were never verified. The defense that an award exceeds an arbitrator’s power is so important that a party may introduce evidence for the first time when the other party tries to confirm the award (see Brijmohan, 92 NY2d at 822-823).
Respondent may also raise on appeal the purely legal argument that Appellate Term lacked the power to remand to Civil Court for a framed issue hearing (see generally Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 31 AD3d 319, 323 n 2 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 NY3d 931 ). On the merits, however, this argument is unavailing (see Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt., 2016 NY Slip Op 50828[U], 51 Misc 3d 149[A] [Appellate Term, 1st Dept, 2016]; Allstate Ins. Co. v DeMoura, 2011 NY Slip Op 50430[U], 30 Misc 3d [*2]145[A] [Appellate Term, 1st Dept, 2011]).”
So in this case, the question on remand will be whether the EUO’s were properly scheduled. The failure here will mean the claims were complete prior to the EUO defaults when there may have been money remaining on the policy. The basis here is that the EIP attender his EUO but the provider defaulted. Measuring the provider EUO against the bill, it was more than 15-business days from its receipt. Measuring the provider EUO letter from the EIP EUO, it was more than 15-days from this date. So the framed issue will be interesting when it all shakes out.
But the important holding here is that this Court is not advocating the proposition that exhaustion is unconditional. The Court is applying 3.15, which would mean, in essence, that this Court may follow the Appellate Term Alleviation line of cases.
Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 50185(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
“On the instant appeal, defendant has annexed to its brief an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 9, 2018, which held, among other things, that all civil lawsuits, judgments and other proceedings “that have been brought or may be brought by . . . Actual [*2]Chiropractic, P.C.” seeking no-fault benefits under the same claim number and regarding the same assignor and motor vehicle accident as in the case at bar are permanently stayed. As a court may take judicial notice “on appeal, of reliable documents, the existence and accuracy of which are not disputed” and, generally, “of matters of public record” (Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667 ; see Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700 ), this court, in the interest of judicial economy, takes judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s order entered February 9, 2018, which permanently “stays” the parties from proceeding further in the action at bar.
In light of the stay issued by the Supreme Court, this appeal has “been rendered academic as any determination on [this] appeal[ ] would not, under the facts of this case, have a direct effect upon the parties” (Matter of Claudia G. [Ermelio G.], 71 AD3d 894, 895 ).”
I usually do not focus or discuss too many MVAIC cases, mainly because they do not terribly interest me and the Second Department has held that every distinctive issue involving MVAIC is either a coverage defense or an additional element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case. The First Department holds that every “condition precedent” is a defense and does not require remedies to be exhausted as a condition precedent. Pardon me for not focusing on MVAIC issues – do not think less of me.
This case interested me due to one sentence:
“The filing of a timely affidavit providing the MVAIC with notice of intention to file a claim is ‘a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment from [MVAIC].’ Compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim must be established in order to demonstrate that the claimant is a ‘covered person,’ within the meaning of the statute, entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the MVAIC” (Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v MVAIC, 53 Misc 3d 142[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51535[U], 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016] [citation omitted]; see Insurance Law §§ 5208 [a] , ; 5221 [b] ). As plaintiff did not establish that such an affidavit had been submitted to MVAIC, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case (see Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] ). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.”
Same case in Civil Bronx: Affirmed with $30 costs. By the way, we have seen the bolded comment before in prior cases. But I think the Court is wrong here. What do I know?
Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC, 2019 NY Slip Op 51618(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)
” Since MVAIC established that there had been no timely filing of a sworn notice to make claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a]), plaintiff’s assignor is not a “covered person” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] ). Thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant has not been satisfied”
When is a condition precedent really a condition precedent? Always interesting.
JJ & R Chiropractic PC v MVAIC, 2019 NY Slip Op 51559(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2019)
” [d]efendant MVAIC failed in its burden to establish, prima facie, that plaintiff’s assignor was not a “qualified person” entitled to no-fault coverage (see Socrates Med. Health, P.C. v MVAIC, 29 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51780[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). Nor has defendant established that plaintiff was required to “exhaust its remedies” against the vehicle’s owner prior to commencing this action”
For some reason, I do not find MVAIC issues blog worthy. Perhaps it is because I do not deal with them frequently. But the exhaustion of remedies has caused a department split in the Appellate Terms. I take MVAIC will leave this alone since the majority of their cases take place in the Second Department, which has historically been more receptive to MVAIC’s “coverage” issue analysis.
Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51150(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)
“Defendant proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits might be available (see e.g. Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 ). ” ‘Since primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,’ it is ‘inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board'”
North Val. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 50904(U)(2d Dept. 2019)
This one was interesting.
(1) “A review of the record indicates that the Civil Court properly denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss the complaint. The affidavits and documents annexed to defendant’s moving papers failed to establish that the corporate plaintiff was a party to the PPO contract, dated October 1998, which states that it is between Emerth L. Coburn, M.D., as an “individual practitioner,” and MultiPlan.”
(2) ” Here, according to defendant, Dr. Coburn explicitly requested Multiplan to include within the scope of his individual PPO contract with Multiplan all bills submitted to [*2]Multiplan bearing plaintiff’s name and taxpayer identification number. Consequently, the Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s alternate relief of compelling an EBT of Dr. Coburn, since defendant is seeking material and necessary evidence to support its defense, as defendant paid plaintiff’s claims in accordance with the provisions of the PPO contract. “
The other issue in the PPO chain is between the carrier and the third-party intermediary. Was that contract presented? We just have multiplan and the doctor individually.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
“In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted affidavits by three employees who described the details of record searches they had performed and stated that their searches had revealed that there was no relevant Hereford Insurance Company policy in effect on the date of the accident in question. We find that defendant’s affidavits were sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of a covered incident”
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C.2018 NY Slip Op 08238 (1st Dept. 2018)
This was an interesting case that discusses the distinction between the defenses of “Mallela” and “over-billing”.
“We find that petitioner’s defense is not a Mallela defense. It is based on the guilty plea of Andrey Anikeyev, who, according to petitioner, is respondent’s “de facto owner,” to conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud. Anikeyev pleaded guilty to billing insurance companies “for health care services for time periods in excess of the actual time period the patient spent with [the] acupuncturist.” This plea supports nothing more than “a defense that the billed-for services were never rendered,” which is “more like a normal’ exception from coverage (e.g., a policy exclusion) [than] a lack of coverage in the first instance” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 565 ), and therefore does not fall into the “settled law recognizing a narrow exception to the 30-day deadline for defenses based on lack of coverage”
And then comes the real nail in the coffin: “Respondent is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees for this appeal, to be determined by Supreme Court”
Advanced Recovery Equip. & Supplies, LLC v Park Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51630(U)(App. Term 2d Dept,. 2018)
“Contrary to defendant’s argument, it failed to establish, as a matter of law, an exhaustion of the coverage limits of the insurance policy at issue, as it did not demonstrate that the policy had been exhausted at the time the claim at issue was complete (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15; Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see also Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 ). Consequently, defendant did not establish its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
Nothing new here.