Do you really believe that the verification was mailed? I don’t

The provider’s affidavit in New Way created a factual dispute about receipt of verification; it did not conclusively prove that every response was received. The same opinion also granted the provider judgment on a different claim because the insurer’s illegibility explanation did not justify doing nothing.

Historical note (September 2026): New Way’s 2015 decision concerns two different claims and evidence of mailing. The current verification hub separates those issues from the later Chapa denial-timing ruling. The skeptical original headline is commentary, not a court finding of false testimony.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The second claim: competing proof required a factual determination

New Way Medical Supply v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 49 Misc 3d 147(A), was decided November 13, 2015. State Farm offered evidence that it timely sent initial and follow-up verification requests and had not received the requested information.

The provider responded with an employee affidavit sufficient to support a presumption of mailing and receipt. The Appellate Term found a triable issue about whether the second cause of action was premature. It therefore denied the insurer’s request for summary judgment on that claim.

The opinion does not reproduce the full employee affidavit. It would be misleading to turn the result into a ready-made form or to say that any employee’s assertion defeats nonreceipt. The evidence was sufficient in this record.

The first claim: an illegibility explanation failed

The insurer acknowledged receipt of a different claim form but argued that it could not act because the form was illegible. The court found the relevant identifying information readable and noted that the insurer already had another claim involving the same claim number and assignor.

The carrier had not timely denied, requested verification or explained why processing was impossible. The court granted the provider summary judgment on that first claim. That payment result did not resolve the verification dispute concerning the second.

This is why a single outcome label loses information. One cause of action remained factually disputed; another supported judgment. Match each result to its claim before using the decision as a comparison.

What the title does and does not mean

The original headline asks whether the verification really was mailed. The court did not answer that question by finding a witness dishonest, and this note does not attribute such a finding to it. The judicial result was that the proof created a factual issue.

A presumption is an evidentiary consequence of sufficient proof; it is not a declaration that competing evidence can never matter. Likewise, proof that the carrier sent requests is different from proof that the provider’s response was never received.

The Daily Medical decision supplies a contrast where the provider failed to show compliance before commencing suit. The August 2010 Eagle Surgical decision shows the opposite initial weakness: the insurer established requests but did not adequately establish nonreceipt. These differences help locate the proof problem in a current file.

Identify what was inside the mailing

As a practical matter, preserve a response copy with its attachments and the evidence connecting them to the mailing. A record saying an envelope left the office may not identify the contents. A copy of a document in a file may not identify when or where it was sent.

The witness’s account should reflect what the witness actually knows: a particular mailing, an established mailing procedure, incoming-document practices or a records search. Those are different sources of knowledge. Do not supply an assumed mailing date or document list because it would make the chronology cleaner.

New Way’s published opinion does not provide every detail of its successful affidavit. It supports comparing actual evidence, not copying an invented template into a different dispute.

The current-law connection

The 2026 Chapa decision rejected a mandatory 150-day deadline for a denial based on failure to provide document verification. It did not resolve whether a response was mailed in New Way or eliminate factual disputes about receipt.

The request type also matters. Prescribed NF forms and examination requests are excluded from the 120-day document-verification subdivisions in Regulation 68. A missing form, unanswered document demand and missed examination should therefore not be put on one assumed clock.

For a file review, keep the two New Way questions separate: did the response evidence create a genuine receipt dispute, and did the carrier have a valid basis for inaction on the particular bill? Answering one does not settle the other.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Chapa in 2019: the 150-day cutoff reversed in 2026.
• Exoto: the withdrawn online opinion and NF-3 form questions.
• Elmont Open MRI: a factual issue prevented judgment for either side.
• Eagle Surgical in October 2010: an attached but incomplete response.
• Compas: document requests separated from missed examinations.
• All Boro: unpaid versus overdue on a search of the record.
• Doctor Goldshteyn: partial production and the objection question.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.