Zen Acupuncture, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51262(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)
“Contrary to defendant’s contention, defendant failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure to appear for EUOs, since the initial EUO request to plaintiff had been sent more than 30 days after defendant had received the claims at issue and, therefore, the requests were nullities as to those claims “
What was the purpose of this appeal? Was defeating a summary judgment motion where Plaintiff, at the end of the day, will prevail upon a trial a proper use of resources? If the carrier had to pay Plaintiff hourly attorney fees, would this appeal have transpired?
Asking for a friend.
2 Responses
Hey friend,
Actually, one of the billS requested was timely under Neptune, so the court made a slight error on this appeal. In any case, this was from a time we were attempting to challenge Neptune’s holding that you could not request a provider EUO after the assignor testified at his euo he didn’t receive the treatment. Alas, the court has doubled down on the requirement you ask for the provider euo right away, even before you get the assignor testimony
Well, I think that if the Assignor EUO was timely and you demanded the provider within 30-days of the Assignor’s EUO, you fit within the App. Term first department’s Utica case. But when a reader sees cases like this, well never mind…