Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50884(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“Appeal from an order…granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,250.90.”
“[j]udgment is reversed without costs, the order entered March 18, 2009 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted”
“The affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as it merely consisted of a conclusory statement by the affiant, the doctor who had provided the treatments, that he reaffirmed his opinion that the disputed services were medically necessary. The affiant did not refer to, or discuss, the determination of defendant’s chiropractors. Consequently, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact with respect to medical necessity (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]), and defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.”
