Opinion
2009-907 K C.
Decided October 1, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin D. Garson, J.), entered March 11, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the unpaid portions of claim forms seeking the sums of $1,820, $1,300, and $780, respectively, and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment as to the unpaid portions of those claim forms.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs, so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment on the unpaid portions of claim forms seeking the sums of $1,820, $1,300, and $780, respectively, is denied, and so much of defendant's cross motion as sought summary judgment on the unpaid portions of those claim forms is granted.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff sought to recover for the unpaid portions of five claim forms for acupuncture services. Defendant had paid portions of each claim, but had denied the remainder of each claim on the ground that plaintiff sought to recover fees in excess of what defendant had determined to be the proper rate of reimbursement for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion, finding that defendant had failed to specify the dates on which its denials were mailed. On appeal, defendant limits its argument to the unpaid portions of three claim forms, which sought the sums of $1,820, $1,300 and $780, respectively.
Contrary to the conclusion of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant's claims division employee was sufficient to establish that the relevant denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 50 AD3d 1123 ; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, defendant properly demonstrated that it had used 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 plaintiff's licensed acupuncturist ( Amercure Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. , 26 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50068[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2010]; see also Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. , 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, since defendant fully paid plaintiff the amount to which plaintiff was entitled with respect to the claim forms seeking the sums of $1,820, $1,300, and $780, respectively, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with regard to those unpaid portions should have been denied and defendant's cross motion with respect thereto should have been granted.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.