Opinion
No. 2011–54KC.
2013-01-14
AXIS CHIROPRACTIC, PLLC as Assignee of July Izguierdo, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO., Respondent.
Present: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered February 25, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 7, 2010 (see CPLR 5501[c] ). The judgment, entered pursuant to the February 25, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken ( seeCPLR 5501 [c] ).
The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely mailed ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ) the denial of claim forms at issue, which denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Moreover, defendant annexed to its motion papers two affirmed independent medical examination (IME) reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination by defendant's chiropractor that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered ( see e.g. Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc.3d 128[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 131[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ).
In opposition to defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, since it did not submit an affirmation or affidavit from a medical professional rebutting the conclusions set forth in the IME reports ( see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc.3d 137[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.