Opinion
2008-239 Q C.
Decided August 31, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered November 2, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 18, 2008 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 2, 2007 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granting defendant summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
Judgment reversed without costs, order, insofar as it denied so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment upon the unpaid portion of a $1,080 claim form received by defendant on December 23, 2004, and, insofar as it, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment as to the unpaid portion of said claim form, vacated, so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment upon the unpaid portion of said claim form granted, and matter remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In support of a motion for summary judgment in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff showed that it had submitted a bill to defendant seeking to recover at a rate of $90 for each session of acupuncture rendered to plaintiff's assignors by plaintiff's licensed acupuncturist. Defendant paid plaintiff for the sessions at the reduced rate of $29.30 per session, which, defendant claimed, was the amount paid to licensed chiropractors for similar services. Plaintiff sought full reimbursement, i.e., the $60.70 balance allegedly due for each session, contending that the amounts which it had charged were not unreasonable and were within the range of the prevailing fees in the geographic area in which plaintiff operated, that is, between $85 and $100 per session. The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, searched the record and granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. A judgment dismissing the complaint was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Contrary to defendant's assertion, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's billing manager was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 ( see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home Mar. Ins. Co. , 55 AD3d 644 ; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]).
Defendant failed to establish that it timely denied the unpaid portion of the claims set forth on the claim form seeking the sum of $1,080 for assignor Clarence Beckford, which form defendant received on December 23, 2004 ( see Insurance Department Regulations [ 11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8). As a result, its defense that plaintiff's $1,080 claim exceeded the amount permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule is precluded ( see Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co. , 21 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]), and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment upon the unpaid portion of said $1,080 claim.
With respect to the remaining claim forms which are the subject of this action, defendant's claims employees established that defendant timely paid a portion of each of said claims and that defendant timely denied the $60.70 per session balance allegedly due on them. For the reasons stated in Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. ( 16 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]), it was proper for defendant to use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the acupuncture services rendered by its acupuncturist ( see AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. , 23 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51017[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. , 17 Misc 3d 41 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Therefore, we decline to disturb so much of the order as, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint with respect to said claims.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.