I suspect if there is one case that I won that I never thought would be consistently cited, Pan Chiro would be it. Pan Chiro involved $300 in CPT testing and a shoddy affidavit of merit from the plaintiff. Yet, it continues to live on.
My case: 1. Mutual Care Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51734(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“Defendant also submitted, among other things, sworn peer review reports, as well as an affidavit executed by the chiropractor who had performed the peer reviews, which set forth a factual basis [*2]and medical rationale for the conclusions that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. As plaintiff failed to proffer an affidavit from a health care practitioner which meaningfully referred to, let alone rebutted, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (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]), defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted”)
My case: 2. I.V. Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group, 2010 NY Slip Op 51736(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“Defendant also submitted, among other things, a sworn peer review report, as well as an affidavit executed by the chiropractor who had performed the peer review, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. As plaintiff failed to proffer an affidavit from a health care practitioner which [*2]meaningfully referred to, let alone rebutted, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (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]), defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”).
3. St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51728(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“As the affirmation of plaintiff’s doctor submitted in opposition to the cross motion did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the [*2]conclusions set forth in the peer review report, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment as to this cause of action should have been granted (see 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]; 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]”)
| I.V. Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group |
