Opinion
2009-401 Q C.
Decided on April 13, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Timothy Dufficy, J.), entered December 17, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied both motions, finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had proved the submission of its claim forms and that defendant had demonstrated that it had timely denied the claims based upon a peer review report, and declaring that medical necessity remained the sole issue for trial.
Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that it established prima facie that the supplies billed for were not medically necessary and that plaintiff failed to rebut that showing. Plaintiff concedes the timeliness of defendant's denials and that defendant's affirmed peer review report raises a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity, but argues that the matter should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment because a triable issue as to medical necessity exists.
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, once defendant submitted an affirmed peer review report that set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for its peer reviewer's opinion that the medical equipment provided was not medically necessary, defendant established, prima facie, a lack of medical necessity for the equipment in question, shifting the burden to plaintiff to rebut defendant's showing ( see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. , 24 Misc 3d 136 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence, defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and its cross motion should have been granted ( see e.g. A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]).
Golia, J.P., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.