Opinion
2010-1201 K C
11-30-2011
Parsons Medical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of MARIE JOSEPH, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.
PRESENT: : , P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), dated January 21, 2010. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
Defendant demonstrated that it had timely mailed the NF-10 denial of claim forms based upon its standard office practices and procedures (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]). Moreover, defendant's affirmed peer review report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the subject medical supplies. Plaintiff challenges defendant's peer reviewer's reliance on various medical records. Some of the records were prepared by plaintiff and, accordingly, plaintiff may not challenge the reliability of those records (see PLP Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50491[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Cross Cont. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]; see also Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]). In addition, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the fact that defendant's peer reviewer took into consideration medical records of other providers in formulating his opinion does not render the peer review report inadmissible (see Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co,, 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).
Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's showing, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY 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 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; 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]). We note that plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lack merit.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., and Weston, J., concur.
Rios, J., dissents in part and concurs in part in a separate memorandum.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
PARSONS MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC. as Assignee of MARIE JOSEPH, Appellant,
-against
NO. 2010-1201 K C
DECIDED METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondent.
Rios, J., dissents in part and concurs in part and votes to modify the order by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied in the following memorandum:
The affidavit of defendant's "litigation representative" in my opinion fails to establish a procedure to ensure the mailing of the denial. The affidavit indicates that the denial envelope is placed in a "pick up" bin, from where it is taken to the mailroom, where postage is affixed, and subsequently mailed. I find the absence of an affidavit from someone familiar with the mailroom procedures is fatal to a claim of timely denial.
Accordingly, I would modify the order by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Plaintiff's cross motion was properly denied. The attorney's affirmation was insufficient to establish plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.