Pollenex Servs., Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50953(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“Upon a review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. We decline plaintiff’s request to limit the issues for trial (see CPLR 3212 [g]).”
At the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, our attorneys have the integrity and experience you need to best assist, advise, and support you through your legal challenge, every step of the way.
Using cutting-edge technology and strategy to solve complicated problems.
We can fight for your pain and suffering, lost income, medical bills, and any future lost wages.
You have the right to bring a malpractice claim for your medical expenses, lost income and pain and suffering.
If you have been sued for an unpaid consumer loan, fallen behind on your credit card bills or similar.
We can help when you are faced with commercial litigation issues.
We work hard to fight for your individual case and rights, while providing superior legal services on a timely, effective, and efficient basis.
Proin rhoncus metus aliquet blandit ad placerat sociosqu erat vel letius scelerisque taciti pulvinar.
Proin rhoncus metus aliquet blandit ad placerat sociosqu erat vel letius scelerisque taciti pulvinar.
2 Responses
what happened to plaintiff’s motion?
was that ever decided?
This is just a situation where the Appellate Term didn’t want to impose a 3212(g) finding on the lower court, which didn’t need to make one when granting the defendant’s cross motion. Had the lower court made a 3212(g)finding, The Appellate Term would have left it alone. (See EMC Health Products v GEICO). I think this decision, as worded, still leaves it open for the lower court to make such a finding before trial if it wants to. It certainly doesn’t prevent the trial court from making that finding. The Appellate Term makes a finding that there is a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity, rather than denying both motions outright. How do you have an issue of fact with respect to medical necessity without implying that a claim was submitted?