Opinion
2003-247 S C.
Decided October 2, 2003.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Barton, J.), dated December 20, 2002, denying its motion for summary judgment.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: DOYLE, P.J., WINICK and LIFSON, JJ.
This is an action under the No-Fault Law to recover for medical services plaintiff provided to its assignor.
In our opinion, the assignment to Damadian MRI at Islandia, P.C. was sufficient. Even though the caption is this suit lists plaintiff as Damadian MRI In Islandia, P.C. instead of "at" Islandia, P.C., the address was the same in both instances. This was obviously a minor discrepancy which does not affect the plaintiff's capacity to sue.
There is an issue of fact as to whether the second MRI, performed by plaintiff on its assignor 2-½ months after the first MRI showed a normal cervical spine, was medically necessary. Defendant's attorney argued that it is impossible to have a negative MRI and then a positive MRI 2-½ months later unless there was some intervening cause. However, the only affirmation submitted by defendant's doctor was prepared before the second MRI was performed and thus did not address the propriety of said second MRI. In the absence of an affirmation by defendant's doctor to the effect that only an intervening event could have caused the second MRI to show a positive result, defendant failed to establish a prima facie case as a matter of law ( Lombardi v. Columbo, 259 AD2d 524). Under the circumstances, we need not consider whether plaintiff's opposition papers, which did not include a sworn statement by a medical expert, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 AD2d 186).