Preferred Home Healthcare & Nurse Servs., Inc. v. Magnacare Admin. Servs., LLC

Full title: PREFERRED HOME HEALTHCARE AND NURSE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 5, 2019

DOCKET NO. A-3353-17T2 (App. Div. Jul. 5, 2019)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-3353-17T2

07-05-2019

PREFERRED HOME HEALTHCARE AND NURSE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAGNACARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.

Callagy Law, PC, attorneys for appellant (Trevor G. Anderson and Christopher R. Miller, on the brief). Becker, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Joseph George Harraka, Jr. and Joseph F. Falgiani, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. C-000160-16. Callagy Law, PC, attorneys for appellant (Trevor G. Anderson and Christopher R. Miller, on the brief). Becker, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Joseph George Harraka, Jr. and Joseph F. Falgiani, on the brief). PER CURIAM

In this contract action, plaintiff Preferred Home Healthcare and Nurse Services, Inc., appeals from a February 16, 2018 order granting defendant Magnacare Administrative Services, LLC summary judgment dismissal. We affirm.

In 2015, the parties entered into a participating provider agreement, which expressly states plaintiff is to be reimbursed a maximum of two hours per day for home nursing services. Plaintiff contends that, when it entered into the agreement, it did not understand that the two hour per day limitation specified in the agreement applied to patients requiring more than two hours of care per day.

On appeal, plaintiff's principal contentions are the subject agreement must be rescinded because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion, devoid of consideration, and the product of a material mistake. We have examined the record and applicable legal principles, and find insufficient merit in plaintiff's contentions to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION