Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00749 (4th Dept, 2019)
“Here, the court determined that there was a willful failure to disclose because, prior to jury selection, defendants’ attorneys knew that they intended to present testimony from the psychiatric expert, but they did not disclose the expert until the day after jury selection began, which violated the court’s directive that defendants disclose an expert as soon as they knew of said expert. Although the record establishes that plaintiff was aware of the possibility that defendants would call an expert psychiatrist, he was prejudiced by the tardiness of the disclosure both because it impaired his ability to discuss the relevant issues during jury selection and because it hamstrung his opportunity to retain an expert [*2]psychiatrist of his own. Thus, based on the evidence in the record supporting the court’s determination that defendants had engaged in purposeful gamesmanship by withholding the information, and the resulting prejudice to plaintiff, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the proposed expert testimony.”
Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51688(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
“Defendant’s expert medical witness, who was not the expert who had prepared the peer review report upon which defendant’s denial of claim form had been based, should have been permitted to testify as to his opinion regarding the lack of medical necessity of the services at issue (see e.g. Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 154[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50349[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). While the expert witness’s testimony should be limited to the basis for the denial as set forth in the peer review report (see id.), it is plaintiff’s burden to make an appropriate objection in the [*2]event the testimony goes beyond the basis for the denial and, if necessary, produce the peer review report”
At the least the judges that were reversed have bee consistent.
Normandin v Bell, 2018 NY Slip Op 04053 (3d Dept. 2018)
“When the expert eventually arrived in the late morning of December 1, 2016, he did not have his original file with him. (In the Third Department, the local rules require the treating doctor to have the original file with them.)
According to the expert, he left the original file in his hotel and it was his belief that it was not necessary for him to have it in order to testify. Defendant objected [*2]to having the expert testify until the original file was with him. Supreme Court directed the expert to have his office make arrangements to immediately bring the original file to the courthouse with the hope that it would arrive in the afternoon. According to the court, the expert could then testify that afternoon and finish the next day, on Friday, December 2, 2016. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, advised the court that the expert had scheduled appointments with patients on December 2, 2016 and was unavailable to testify that day or on December 5, 2016. The next available day for the expert was Tuesday, December 6, 2016. The court, however, instructed the expert to reschedule his appointments. The expert testified in the afternoon of December 1, 2016, but by the completion of direct examination by plaintiffs’ counsel, the original file had not arrived. Defendant thereafter orally moved to strike the expert’s testimony. The court denied the oral application as premature.
On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs’ expert did not appear. Defendant renewed his motion to strike the expert’s testimony and plaintiffs moved for, among other things, a continuance. Supreme Court, among other things, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance and granted defendant’s motion to strike. After plaintiffs rested, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint based upon plaintiffs’ failure to prove a prima facie case due to the absence of expert testimony. Supreme Court granted the motion and a judgment was subsequently entered thereon. Plaintiffs now appeal. We reverse.
Whether to grant a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 ; Stone v Hidle, 266 AD2d 705, 706 ) and, absent an abuse of such discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed (see Gutin-Nedo v Marshall, Cheung & Diamond, 301 AD2d 728, 729 ; Gombas v Roberts, 104 AD2d 521, 522 ). “[I]t is an abuse of the court’s discretion to deny a continuance where the application complies with every requirement of the law and is not made merely for delay, where the evidence is material and where the need for a continuance does not result from the failure to exercise due diligence” (Cirino v St. John, 146 AD2d 912, 913  [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Black v St. Luke’s Cornwall Hosp., 112 AD3d 661, 661 ; Brusco v Davis-Klages, 302 AD2d 674, 674 ).
We conclude that plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance should have been granted (see Stevens v Auburn Mem. Hosp., 286 AD2d 965, 966 ; Cirino v St. John, 146 AD2d at 914). The record does not support Supreme Court’s finding that the failure of plaintiffs’ expert to appear and complete his testimony on December 2, 2016 stemmed from a lack of due diligence by plaintiffs (see Brusco v Davis-Klages, 302 AD2d at 674-675; compare McKenna v Connors, 36 AD3d 1062, 1064 , lv dismissed and denied 8 NY3d 969 ). Furthermore, the expert’s testimony was material, plaintiffs requested only a brief adjournment, the court had allotted two weeks for trial and the continuance request was not made for the purpose of delay. Accordingly, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request for a continuance (see Zysk v Bley, 24 AD3d 757, 758 ; Mura v Gordon, 252 AD2d 485, 485 ; Hoffner v County of Putnam, 167 AD2d 755, 756 ; Gombas v Roberts, 104 AD2d at 522).
In the real world of law, this type of circumstance always calls for a re-trial. I would say that even in NF provided you get the availability dates of the doctor, this will work also.
Pascocello v Jibone, 2018 NY Slip Op 03466 (1st Dept. 2018)
“An expert’s opinion “must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness” (Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 725  [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204, 206 [1st Dept 2010]), and in the absence of such record support, an expert’s opinion is without probative force (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 ). Here, Supreme Court properly precluded Dr. Toosi from offering an opinion based on photographs for which no proper foundation had been established.
Gullo v Bellhaven Ctr. for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00279 (2d Dept. 2018)
“Here, Shapiro established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affirmation of his medical expert, who addressed the specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiffs’ bills of particulars. The expert concluded that Shapiro did not [*2]depart from the applicable standard of care and that, in any event, the alleged departures were not a proximate cause of any alleged injuries. In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. Where, as here, “a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion” (DiLorenzo v Zaso, 148 AD3d 1111, 1113 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Tsimbler v Fell, 123 AD3d 1009, 1009-1010; Feuer v Ng, 136 AD3d at 707). The plaintiffs’ expert failed to provide such foundation. ”
There is this doctor who is now signing affidavits of merit in Court actions. He is a pediatrician opining on the efficacy of pain creams. I will not say more.
Queens Vil. Med. Care, P.C. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51799(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“Plaintiff moved to preclude defendant’s expert medical witness from testifying on the ground that his specialty is physical medicine and rehabilitation, while the author of the peer report is an orthopedic surgeon who stated in the peer review report that he was conducting the review from an orthopedic surgery standpoint. The court precluded the witness, granted plaintiff’s application for a directed verdict and awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,671.
An expert medical witness’s specialty goes to the weight to be given to the testimony and not to the witness’s competency to testify as an expert (see Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Erie Ins. Co. of NY, 54 Misc 3d 129[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51815[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). Thus, defendant’s witness should have been permitted to testify.”
This is a really interesting paradigm. There is case law as we all know about the out of specialty doctor. A PMR commenting on an orthopedist appears to be inappropriate in light of the Second Department case law on the issue involving out of specialty expert evidence.
Yet, if we are discussing PT, then perhaps the weight of evidence rule is correct?
Porcha v Binette, 2017 NY Slip Op 08141 (4th Dept, 2017)
(1) After defendants gave notice that they intended to call Dr. Riegler as an expert witness at trial, plaintiff served a judicial subpoena duces tecum on the nonparties and defendants’ insurer seeking the production of various documents and materials. As relevant to these appeals, in paragraph two of the subpoena plaintiff sought production of all billing and payment records related to examinations performed by Dr. Riegler on behalf of all insurance companies and attorneys for the prior five years. Plaintiff sought such information to ascertain any possible bias or interest on the part of Dr. Riegler.
(2) The nonparties and defendants moved, inter alia, to quash the subpoena, and Supreme Court denied the motions in part. The nonparties and defendants now appeal. Contrary to the contention of the nonparties and defendants, the court properly denied those parts of the motions seeking to quash paragraph two of the subpoena. Plaintiff was entitled to the information to assist her in preparing questions for cross-examination of Dr. Riegler concerning his bias or interest (see Dominicci v Ford, 119 AD3d 1360, 1361 [4th Dept 2014]; see generally Salm v Moses, 13 NY3d 816, 818 ).
Harris v Campbell, 2017 NY Slip Op 08112 (4th Dept. 2017)
(1) CPLR 3101(d)
“Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court properly limited the testimony of one of plaintiff’s treating physicians. “CPLR 3101 (d) (1) applies only to experts retained to give opinion testimony at trial, and not to treating physicians, other medical providers, or other fact witnesses” (Rook v 60 Key Ctr., 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]). ” Where . . . a plaintiff’s intended expert medical witness is a treating physician whose records and reports have been fully disclosed . . . , a failure to serve a CPLR 3101 (d) notice regarding that doctor does not warrant preclusion of that expert’s testimony on causation, since the defendant has sufficient notice of the proposed testimony to negate any claim of surprise or prejudice’ ” (Hamer v City of New York, 106 AD3d 504, 509 [1st Dept 2013]). Here, one of plaintiff’s treating physicians did not provide any expert disclosure, and during trial he indicated that, in addition to being a medical doctor, he received a Ph.D. in biomechanical engineering and he often relies on his engineering background in his medical practice. Subsequently, that treating physician was asked some questions pertaining to biomechanics, and specifically was asked about the amount of force needed to cause a lumbar injury. We conclude that defendant’s objections to that line of questioning were properly sustained inasmuch as defendant did not receive sufficient notice that the treating physician relied on his engineering background to support his opinions and conclusions about plaintiff’s injuries (see generally id.). Indeed, plaintiffs made no attempt in response to defendant’s objections to point to any medical records or other documentation that would establish that defendant had such notice.”
(2) “We reject plaintiffs’ contention with respect to the photographs of plaintiff’s vehicle inasmuch as it is well established that “[p]hotographs showing no damage to a plaintiff’s vehicle are admissible to impeach a plaintiff’s credibility on the issue whether the accident caused the alleged injuries” (Tout v Zsiros, 49 AD3d 1296, 1297 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 713 ). Furthermore, “even when liability is not at issue, proof as to the happening of an accident is probative and admissible as it describes the force of an impact or other incident that would help in determining the nature or extent of injuries and thus relate to the question of damages’ ” (Anderson v Dainack, 39 AD3d 1065, 1066 [3d Dept 2007])”
Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51452(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“It is undisputed that defendant denied plaintiff’s claim for services billed under CPT code 97039 in its entirety. Because the workers’ compensation fee schedule has assigned a “By Report” designation for that CPT code, a provider billing under that CPT code is required to furnish certain additional documentation to enable the insurer to determine the appropriate amount of reimbursement. Plaintiff properly argues that where, as here, a provider does not [*2]provide such documentation with its claim form, and the insurer will not pay the claim as submitted, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b) requires the insurer to, within 15 business days of its receipt of the claim form, request “any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim” (see Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 135[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50101[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]).
The record demonstrates that defendant received the claim form and that, with respect to the services at issue, its denial of the claim was based upon a failure to provide documentation. Plaintiff correctly argues that, because defendant never requested such documentation, defendant’s denial of claim form is without merit as a matter of law. Consequently, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed under CPT code 97039 should have been denied and the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on that portion of the complaint should have been granted (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 ; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).”
It is hard not to have seen this result coming. But it should be made clear that the failure to seek verification does not end the inquiry. Assuming, as is usually the case, that verification is not sought, an expert review is necessary to determine the compensability, if any, of the service. Similar to the failure to seek verification when the defense is lack of medical necessity, the provider can argue that the review is based upon an inadequate factual basis.
Surgicare Surgical Assoc. of Fair Lawn v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 32202(U)(Krauss, J.)
Surgery denials on medical necessary grounds are probably the most difficult to substantiate in the arbitral forum. Whether the applicant has no rebuttal, a letter of medical necessity or a full discussion, the losses are unacceptably high. The litigation scene is a little better as the peers often go unrebutted. Yet, this case from Civil Bronx mirrors the common arbitration award I have been reviewing the last few weeks on this project.
(1) Dr. Scarpinto did review the physical therapy notes
Dr. Scarpinto felt that surgery was not warranted based on Assignor’s medical records. Dr. Scarpinto stated that the progress reports for Assignor’s Physical Therapy consistently described his progress as good, and she relied heavily on this fact. The reports she based this on however, are not fact filled narratives about the Assignor’s progress, but rather a series of multiple choice options circled and signed off on by a therapist. Each date has the same options circled from the first date of therapy, through the last. The five options available to circle on the report under progress were very good, good, fair or poor.
(2) Dr. Scarpinto did not review the acupuncture notes
[the acupuncture notes were not reviewed in the report]. These reports cover a period from March through July 2013 and show that Assignor continued to seek relief from the pain, and while the Acupuncture treatments were often noted as
helping, as of July 2013, Assignor continued to suffer from pain and at times perceived no relief in pain even with the treatments
(3) Dr. Scarpinto’s medical rationale for denying treatment
Dr. Sacrpinto did not appear to believe that the physical therapy was as aggressive as it could have been, noting in her peer review “(i)t is important to stress that these physical therapy treatments did not include any form of active rehabilitation which is the standard of care in the rehabilitation of a knee injury. In this case, passive modalities were provided to the claimant …(Peer Review)”.
Dr. Scarpinto also did not believe the information, provided by the Assignor and accepted by his doctors, that Assignor had no prior problems with his knee. She testified at trial that she did not believe the accident caused Assignor’s knee injury. This is also reflected in her Peer Review where she stated “(e)ssentially, the findings notes on this MRI strongly suggest long standing degenerative processes that do not appear to be directly related to the motor vehicle accident in question.”
Dr. Scarpinto then concluded that surgery was not appropriate for a degenerative knee condition and relied upon an article from a medical journal, also submitted in evidence, which specifies the limitations of surgery for a degenerative condition. The article does however state “.. (p)atients with realistic expectations of surgical outcome who specifically understand that the goal of the surgery is to diminish pain and improve function and not to cure their arthritis “ would be appropriate candidates for surgery
(4) Court disproves defense
Dr. Scarpinto was justified in basing her opinion on the assumption that Assignor was lying about previous problems with his left knee, and that the accident was not the cause of his injury, Dr. Scarpinto failed to establish through her testimony that surgery was inconsistent with generally accepted medical practices. While her testimony did establish that there are limitations as to when surgery is appropriate, the authority she relied upon specifically provides that it may be appropriate for patients with realistic expectations as to the surgery being intended to reduce pain rather than cure the degenerative condition. It is precisely due to the ongoing chronic pain that Assignor was referred for the surgery.
It is hard to tell if this decision resulted from naivete, inappropriately stressing a lack of causal relationship defense that cannot be substantiated without the MRI films and the surgical photos discussed to the trier of the fact or the notion that lack of appropraite physical therapy treatment does not substantiate a lack of medical necessity for extremity surgery. I cannot tell where this case fell.
But assume the doctor was asked the hypothetical as to why the acupuncture notes did not matter? Assume the doctor was asked as to why certain types of physical therapy meet some standard (what is the standard)? Assume the doctor was asked as to the articles, treatises or textbooks stating that the appropriateness of a certain type of PT is a condition precedent to surgery? Would any of that have established a lack of medical necessity?
Also, inasmuch as the knee is avascular, does the literature support repairing an organ that will not heal on its own? Will an untreated knee with a tear lead to eventual arthrocis without surgery The decision is disturbing as a defense practitioner – mainly because I cannot grasp what happened at this bench trial.