Key Takeaway
New York court rules that infant compromise orders aren't needed in no-fault arbitration when healthcare provider acts as assignee, not the infant patient as party.
Understanding Party Status in No-Fault Arbitration Cases
No-fault insurance arbitration often involves complex questions about who qualifies as a party to the proceeding. A recent Second Department decision clarifies an important distinction: when a healthcare provider acts as an assignee of benefits from an infant patient, the special procedural requirements that apply when infants are parties to arbitration do not come into play.
This case demonstrates how courts carefully analyze the true parties in interest in arbitration proceedings, particularly in the context of assigned no-fault insurance benefits. The ruling provides crucial guidance for healthcare providers seeking to recover payment through arbitration without unnecessarily complicated procedural hurdles.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03831 (2d Dept. 2018)
“We agree with the Supreme Court that the arbitrator’s award was irrational and in conflict with CPLR 1209, which applies “only where an infant is a party” to an arbitration proceeding (Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d 670, 670, affd 19 NY2d 759; see Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123, 127). The infant patient was not a party to the arbitration; rather, Fast Care, as the infant’s assignee, was the party that brought the arbitration (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.11). Therefore, we agree with the court that the arbitrator disregarded established law in determining that the requirements of CPLR 1209 applied here (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d at 127; see Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d at 670). Furthermore, the master arbitrator’s determination that the assignment of benefits was not effective was not based on any requirement set forth in established law or regulations (see generally 11 NYCRR 65-2.4).”
Bonus attorney fees: “Fast Care did not demonstrate its entitlement to an award of an attorney’s fee, as the arbitrator did not reach the issue of whether the subject claims were “overdue""
Key Takeaway
Healthcare providers acting as assignees of no-fault benefits from infant patients need not comply with CPLR 1209’s infant compromise requirements in arbitration. The infant is not a party to the arbitration—the provider-assignee is the actual party bringing the claim, making special infant protections inapplicable to the proceeding.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 decision, the regulations governing no-fault arbitration procedures (11 NYCRR 65-2 and 65-3) may have been amended, and CPLR 1209 provisions regarding infant parties in arbitration could have been modified through legislative updates or judicial interpretation. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language and procedural requirements for assignee arbitrations involving infant patients before relying on the procedural framework discussed in this analysis.
