Mr. Five Boro finally squeaks one out

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51057(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)

He is a rambunctious soul.  They say he is devoted to performing a never ending battery of Beck Inventory Tests and has a mobile Scantron reader because the patients need results.  Instant gratification is how business is performed nowadays.  His patients need physical therapy and are engaged with his form of therapy.  The Appellate Term generally disfavors him, but he beat back Geico.  Fear not, it was not on the merits.  Mr. Five Boro took a page out of Mercury’s 2010 play book.  He figured it worked then; why should it not work now?

“Plaintiff argues on appeal, as it did in the Civil Court, that the peer review reports defendant submitted in support of its cross motion for summary judgment were not in admissible form. We agree, as the peer review reports were affirmed by a psychologist, which is not permissible pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50151[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; High Quality Med., P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 132[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51900[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). We note that, although one of the peer review reports contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, it did not include an attestation that the psychologist had appeared before the notary public and been duly sworn”

I tip my hat to Mr. Five Boro on this one.