Key Takeaway
New York court ruling confirms insurance coverage existence doesn't defeat summary judgment motions in medical debt cases, establishing patient liability principles.
North Shore Univ. Hosp. At Manhasset v Austin, 2014 NY Slip Op 50123(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
So you go to the doctor and they accept your insurance. There is a balance left over. Are you still liable on the balance? Appears so.
“In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant made only conclusory and unsupported allegations, which failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendant did not deny that he had been treated by plaintiff hospital and that medical bills had been sent, and he failed to demonstrate that he was not obligated on the debt. Although he claimed that he did not “owe these fees,” other than such assertion, he did not present any evidence to establish that an error had been made in calculating the amount sought. His assertion that he had made out-of-pocket payments to the physicians who had treated him is irrelevant to the payments sought by plaintiff. Finally, the fact that there was some insurance coverage does not relieve defendant from liability on the debt. To the extent that defendant argues that he is awaiting answers to his interrogatories, and cannot form a defense until then, we note that he seeks information concerning payments allegedly made by his own insurance company, which is not information “unavailable” to him”
