Opinion
2010-2198 K C
12-16-2011
Queens Medical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of ROBERT MARTIN, Appellant, v. Geico General Ins. Co., Respondent.
PRESENT: : , P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 27, 2010. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
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 denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely denied the claim at issue, on the ground of lack of medical necessity, 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 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, defendant annexed to its motion papers an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided (see e.g. 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]).
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 from a doctor rebutting the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY 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 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). While plaintiff asserted that the peer review report contained an electronic stamped facsimile of the peer reviewer's signature and, as a result, the report was inadmissible, the record indicates that the facsimile signature was placed on the report by the doctor who had performed the peer review or at his direction (see Eden Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50265[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; cf. Orthotic Surgical & Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51540[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Radiology Today, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Thus, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.