Verification and fee schedule issues

Blackman v Nationwide Ins., 2019 NY Slip Op 52038(U) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)

Two lessons. The Appellate Term is still finding the generic I mailed the verification affidavit sufficient to raise an issue of fact. Seems wrong to me. Secondly, the Judge Hackeling’s constitutional findings on FS predictability seem to be in doubt.

“Defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ) and had not received the requested verification. However, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152, 2015 NY Slip Op 51776 ). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification. Moreover, we find that, on this record, there is also a triable issue of fact as to defendant’s fee schedule defense, which defense, contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, defendant was not required to establish that it had preserved, as the services at issue were rendered in 2015 (see 11 NYCRR 65—3.8 ; ).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered December 8, 2017 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Related Articles

• [Understanding Verification Requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims](Understanding Verification Requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims)
• [Another verification again](Another verification again)
• [120-day rule and Fee Schedule](120-day rule and Fee Schedule)
• [The By-Report](The By-Report)
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law