Psychology YM, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51316(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Why this objection was even considered is crazy. It does not pass the smell test, let alone the laugh test. Yet, I cannot say I am the least bit surprised. Luckily, the order was reversed. Unfortunately, a new trial was ordered. The complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice.
“At a nonjury trial, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude the testimony of defendant’s witness, the psychologist who had prepared the peer review report upon which defendant’s claim denial was predicated, because his peer review report was not in admissible form. The Civil Court thereupon awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,078.48. In view of the fact that defendant sought to call as a witness its psychologist, who was prepared to testify about the factual basis and medical rationale for his opinion, as set forth in his peer review report, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered, and since he was subject to cross-examination, it was error for the Civil Court to have precluded him from testifying”
One Response
I believe that this decision is correct. In support of this decison, the Court cited case law holding that a substitute peer review can lawfully testify.