My medical necessity summary judgment crusade continues.
Gz Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50491(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
We have seen this before: “In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affirmation of plaintiff’s doctor did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (id.; see also 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]).”
Besides this case and those like it, I would say that the plaintiffs are getting better at defeating these types of motions. This only makes sense. I mean, in a similar vain, would it make sense after 3-4 years of losing cases based upon the “mailing” issue, for carriers not to figure out how to craft procedures and draft affidavits that would raise the inference that an item was mailed?
As I have also said before, however, the Appellate Term recently gave two free passes, on medical necessity summary judgment motion, to firms that should be eternally grateful that the contents of their papers were not exposed.
