Key Takeaway
Court rejects insurance carrier's argument that chiropractor's 5% billing company fee constitutes ownership under Mallela doctrine in New York no-fault case.
This article is part of our ongoing mallela issues coverage, with 32 published articles analyzing mallela issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
H & H Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 25132 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. 2015)
Fact
“Defendant also submits the deposition transcript of Dr. Lucas Bottcher, DC, a member of the plaintiff’s practice. Therein, Dr. Bottcher admitted that plaintiff employs SMG and they are paid a fixed fee of five percent of collections. Defendant argues that since plaintiff allegedly pays six (or five) percent of its fees to its billing company, that its billing company owns six percent of plaintiff’s practice.”
Contention
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Plaintiff owned by a management conclusion
Court’s conclusion
No sir.
My thought
Carrier is probably overreaching. Was this an arms length transaction? Was it commercially reasonable? Was the PC being operated by people who were unauthorized to operate a medical practice? Many people pay payroll companies a percentage of their payrolls to do process the payroll. Franchisees pay franchisors a percentage of net proceedings for the ability to carry the company’s name. The franchisee is usually guaranteed distributos, advertising, a customer base and marketting support. A medical practice needs a practice manager to perform various tasks. Thus, is a percentage of net or gross of intake to a practice manager who handles the business end inappropriate? I am not sure I would agree to that set up, but it does not make it wrong.
If one can tell me that the practice manager is not telling (explicitly or implicitly) the doctor/healthcare practitioner to perform 25 EMG/s a day, 30 SSEPs a day and bill 200 hours of PT per date of operation, then this might be reasonable. But that is the rub: many times there are people who are not duly licensed and credentialed healthcare practitioners calling the shots as to the medical treatment. Thus, while a 6% percent spread on the net or gross might be an indicia of the latter, this allegation in and of itself should not allow a carrier to issue a blanket disclaimed to the provider.
I think it is an invitation for more disclosure as to financials, but if that does not yield anything, then the end of the line has appeared.
Related Articles
- Understanding Mallela-Based Discovery in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- Why does a Mallela defense survive an untimely disclaimer, while a workers compensation defense doesn’t?
- Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department
- Professional Service LLC Dissolution in NY: When Medical Licenses Are Suspended
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Mallela Fraud Defense in No-Fault Insurance
The Mallela defense — named after the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm v. Mallela — allows insurers to deny no-fault claims by proving that a medical provider fraudulently incorporated to circumvent licensing requirements. Establishing a Mallela defense requires extensive investigation and evidence of corporate structure, ownership, and control. These articles analyze the Mallela doctrine, its procedural requirements, and the evolving case law that shapes how courts evaluate fraudulent incorporation claims in no-fault practice.
32 published articles in Mallela issues
Keep Reading
More Mallela issues Analysis
Wind it up
Professional corporation can continue operating and seek no-fault benefits despite revoked license, according to NY Appellate Term ruling on Business Corporation Law requirements.
Mar 17, 2021
Discovery penalty: dismissal
NY court dismisses medical provider's no-fault case for discovery violations and refusal to answer deposition questions about doctor's business interests
Apr 30, 2019
Appellate Term Holds CPLR 3212(f) Relief Is Inappropriate Under Three Separate Circumstances
Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.
Feb 25, 2010
Mallela not supported
Court ruling shows lack of evidence for Mallela defense in no-fault insurance case involving professional corporation ownership and control requirements.
Nov 17, 2017
Reversal of Supreme Court's vacatur on a First Department 75
First Department reverses Supreme Court's vacatur of arbitration award involving Mallela defense burden of proof in no-fault insurance reimbursement case.
Jun 30, 2016
A Mallela defense does not have to be pleaded
Appellate Term rules Mallela defense doesn't require formal pleading - adequate allegations of fraudulent incorporation sufficient for discovery rights
Mar 2, 2012Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a mallela issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
