Key Takeaway
Court rejects doctor's testimony on billing records foundation in NY no-fault case, finding gaps in witness knowledge of separate billing company procedures.
AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50510(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2013)
“The court finds that Dr. Rozenberg’s testimony was insufficient to lay the foundation necessary to establish that plaintiff’s billing documents are business records. Dr. Rozenberg indicated that although Kevi Management Company (“Kevi”) was located in the same building, it was a separate entity that handled all of the collection and billing tasks for AR Medical Rehabilitation (71, 81-82). Dr. Rozenberg stated that Kevi employees generated the bills and that he would sign or stamp them, but the witness failed to adequately describe the procedure that Kevi employees followed when creating bills (tr 25-26, 71). The doctor testified that after receiving the signed or stamped bill, a Kevi employee (1) inserted bills in an envelope, (2) placed the envelopes in a plastic bag, (3) delivered the entire package to the post office for mailing, then (4) recorded the mailing of each bill in a notebook that was kept in the office (tr 24, 28).”
.
“Based upon the inconsistencies and gaps in Dr. Rozenberg’s testimony and the plaintiff’s failure to produce a witness from the Kevi Company, the court finds that plaintiff failed to lay the proper foundation for admission of the documents in evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518; compare Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 and Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C., 31 Misc 3d 21 with Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Geico Indemnity Co., 79 AD3d 864 . Consequently, the court hereby rescinds its decision to admit plaintiff’s bills into evidence as business records on the day of trial.”
Problems abound for Dr. Rozenberg – and more than his criminal issues.
Related Articles
- Understanding the business records exception and foundation requirements
- Third-party billing records admissibility in New York No-Fault claims
- CPLR 4518(a) business records admissibility requirements
- Business records challenges when data entry procedures are unclear
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The business records foundation requirements under CPLR 4518 and related evidentiary standards for medical billing documentation may have been modified through court rule amendments or appellate decisions since this 2013 ruling. Practitioners should verify current foundational requirements and procedural standards for admitting billing records, particularly regarding third-party billing entities and witness testimony requirements.
