Pugsley Chiropractic PLLC v MVAIC, 2015 NY Slip Op 50718(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)
(1) Defendant MVAIC made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claims based on a sworn independent medical examination (IME) report of its examining chiropractor, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his stated conclusion that the assignor’s injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further chiropractic treatment (see Utica Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50643[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013])
I am partial to Utica Acupuncture – nothing new there.
(2) “Contrary to the conclusion reached below, defendant was not required to provide notice of the scheduled IME to plaintiff provider (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; 65-3.5[b],[c]; 65-3.6[b]; BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 60632[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2014]), and the court therefore erred in declining to consider the report on this ground (see V.S. Care Acupuncture PC v MVAIC, 47 Misc 3d 126[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50350[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).”
I am surprised that somebody countenanced this argument.
