Another Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact against a medical necessity summary judgment motion. This affidavit, if memory served me correct, was quite verbose. It was close to the minimal threshold needed to raise an issue of fact (See, Infinity v. Mercury and Coop City Chiro v. Mercury), but did not cut the mustard as they say. Oh by the way – I was the Respondent here, not the Appellant as is usually the case.
Prime Psychological Servs., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group, 2010 NY Slip Op 50585(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as the psychologist’s affirmation submitted by plaintiff 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]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted”
