Opinion
14725/07.
Decided October 17, 2008.
Moia A. Doherty, Esq., Uniondale, New York, Defendant.
Bakers, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock Neuwirth, Mineola, New York, Plaintiff.
This case invokes the inverted trajectory that must be followed when an insurer raises the defense that a medical services provider has failed to timely submit its proof of claim.
Defendant Clarendon National Ins. Co., ("defendant" or "Clarendon") moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff, Joseph Rockman LMT a/a/o Delilah Serrano ("plaintiff" or "Rockman") on the grounds that plaintiff failed to timely submit written proof of claim within 180 days after the date medical services were rendered pursuant to 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12 ("old rules") or within 45 days after the services were rendered pursuant to 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-1.1 ("new rules"). Defendant alleges that the bills, dated 4/17/07, are for services rendered in October — November 2002; the bills are thus dated some four and a half years after the services were rendered. Specifically, defendant asserts that the first time it learned about this claim was when plaintiff served its law office with a summons and complaint dated August 16, 2007, which attached a chart referring to such bill dated 4/17/07, although no such bill was attached.
Defendant originally contended that plaintiff failed to submit the claims with 45 days of the date of service but later amended its motion to claim Claim that plaintiff violated the 180 day rule provision under the old regulations.
Insurance Department Regulation 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65-3.3 and 65-2.4 shortened the time period filing no fault claims from 180 days to 45 days from the rendering of medical services. Pursuant to the revised insurance regulation, all automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002 are required to include a revised Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement ("Endorsement") which reduces the time within which claims are to be submitted from 180 days to 45 days ( 11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65.12 [e], now Insurance Department Regulations [ 11 N.Y.C.R.R.] § 65-1.1 [b]. See, Mtr. Of Medical Society of the State of NY v. Serio, 298 AD2d 255 (1st Dept. 2002); Eagle Chiropractic P.C., v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 129A, 859 NYS2d 902 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2008); S M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 791 NYS2d 873 (App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2004). The latest date of expiration for an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would be April 2003 S M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. supra.
Defendant further avers that its law office received the actual bill, dated 4/17/07, when it received discovery in a related case involving the same medical provider on or about, October 10, 2007. Defendant thereupon mailed its denial of the bill on, November 7, 2007 within 30 days of its receipt of the bill, thus preserving the defense of late submission.
Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why it has failed to present a health insurance claim form dated within 180 days of the dates of services in October — November 2002. Nor does it address how it came to pass that defendant was made aware of the claim's existence through discovery in another matter. Rather, plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment alleging that plaintiff made its prima facie case by setting forth that the bills were mailed and not paid or denied within thirty days. In support of its motion, plaintiff submits a generic affidavit from Dr. Joseph Rockman, dated December 10, 2007, which details in great detail the office's practices and procedures for mailing out claims for service and then states that in accordance with that procedure, the "aforementioned bills, which are the subject of this lawsuit, were mailed to the defendant." Accompanying this affidavit were Dr. Rockman's notes of his treatment of the assignor during 2002-03 and the Health Insurance Claim form dated, 4/17/07, for services purportedly rendered in November 2002. Plaintiff fails to explain why the only health insurance claim it can produce is dated April 17, 2007 and does not address how this particular claim form was formulated or mailed.
To grant summary judgment, "it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented" Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d 295 (2004); Zuckerman v, City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (1980). Once such proof has been offered, in order for the opposing party to defeat the motion for summary judgment, it must "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact." Inwood Hills Medical P.C. v. Bronx Neurodiagnostics P.C., 3 Misc 3d 1110A, 787 NYS2d 678 (Civil Ct., NY Co., 2004) quoting CLR 3212 (b). See, Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986). If the opposing party fails to submit evidentiary facts to controvert the fact in the movant's papers, then summary judgment must be grated since there are not triable issues of fact. Inwood, supra . See, Kuehne Nagel, Inc. v. F.W. Baiden, 36 NY2d 539 (1975).
Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106, a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits. The old regulations required that written proof of claim must be submitted to the insurance company "as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later] than 180 days after the date services are rendered or 180 days after the date written notice was given to the [insurer]." (11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.12) See, Montefiore Medical Center v. Mary Immaculate Hospital, 9 AD3d 354 (2d Dept. 2004). Within 30 days of receiving a claim, the insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part ( see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [g] [3]). This 30-day period may be extended by a timely demand by the insurance company for further verification of a claim ( see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [d] [1]). A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided ( see 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 65.15 [g] [1] [I] Id at 355; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553,(2d Dept. 1999). In the event an insurer fails to timely deny a claim or request verification from the hospital, the insurer is precluded from asserting that the claim was untimely or incomplete . Montefiore Medical Center,, supra at 355. See, Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282, (1997); New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583 (2002).
Although a health care provider is required to submit its proof of claim within 180 days after the services were rendered, "an insurer is precluded from asserting the defense of a provider's untimely submission of proof of claim if it does not issue a timely denial of claim." Mid Atlantic Medical P.C., v. Travelers Indemnity, Co., 12 Misc 3d 147A, 824 NYS2d 769 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2006). See, New York Presbyt. Hops. V. Eagle Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 646 (2d Dept. 2005); Montefiore Medical Ctr., supra
It is clear that defendant Clarendon may assert this defense since it timely denied the claim. Defendant submitted two affidavits from its claims representative averring that Clarendon never received any claim forms dated 2002 or 2003 for services rendered between, November 1-15, 2002, and hence could not have denied such claim. Rather, defendant first became aware of the bills dated April 17, 2007 for services rendered back in 2002 when its attorneys were served with a summons and complaint, dated July 2007, in this matter. Annexed to the complaint was a chart referring to the assignor, listing the amount owed and the dates of service. The actual bills for these services were not received by Clarendon until October 10, 2007, when the they were included as part of discovery in a related case sent to defendant's attorneys. The affiant claims examiner then issued a denial on November 7, 2007, within 30 days of the bill's receipt, and the denial was mailed on that same day in accordance with the standard office mailing procedures. .
Having properly asserted this defense, defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless plaintiff can raise a factual issue as to whether the aforementioned bills were in fact mailed on, December 14, 2002, as asserted by plaintiff. "Service of both the no-fault claim and assignment forms is established by an actual affidavit of mailing or by proof of an office practice and procedure followed . . . in the regular course of . . . business' . . . geared so as to ensure the likelihood that [the item] is always properly addressed and mailed Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996 , 999 (Civil Ct., Queens Co. . 2007) citing Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830(1978). . A post office receipt may supply additional "direct proof of actual mailing" ( LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 30 AD3d 727 , 728, (3d Dept 2006) provided the evidence relates the receipt to an identified mailing ( New York Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. , 29 AD3d 547 , 548 (2d Dept 2006).Such proof may also include a medical services bill with a certified mail return receipt, ( Hospital for Joint Diseases and Presbyterian Hosp. v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 352 (2d Dept. 2006); NY. Presbyterian Hosp. V. Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492 (2d Dept. 2006); and or a signed return receipt card which referenced the patient and forms and an affidavit of a third party biller ( NY. Presbyterian Hosp. v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Ins. Co., 37 A.D 3d 683 (2d Dept. 2007).
In the instant matter, plaintiff has failed to present evidentiary facts to controvert defendant's denial based upon plaintiff's untimely submission of the bills. No presumption of mailing was created because the affidavit of Dr. Rockman did not state that he actually mailed the particular claims at issue, and Dr. Rockman's recital of his office practices did not establish, by admissible proof, that this procedure was in fact followed on, December 12, 2002. See, Multiquest PLLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 1069(A), .814 NYS2d 563 (Civil Ct., Queens Co. 2004) (affidavit of plaintiff s owner, in which he does not attest to personal knowledge of this claim but states that he is "fully familiar with all the policies, practices and procedures" of plaintiff, is insufficient to lay a foundation for the exhibits attached to the moving papers. "Significantly, plaintiff fails to establish the mailing of its claim to defendant, a necessary element of its prima facie case.") ( See Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. , 5 AD3d 742 , 774 NYS2d 564 (2d Dept 2004); Residential Holding Corp, supra . Fatally missing from plaintiff's papers is a copy of the medical claim dated in 2002 that was purportedly mailed on December 13, 2002.
Specifically, Dr. Rockman averred that it is his office's customary practice that after the envelope containing the bill is delivered to the U.S post office, a photocopy of the bill and supporting documents are then placed in the appropriate patient file and a notation is made on the file confirming the date and amount of the bill and the date the bill was mailed. He then alleged that the bills which are subject of this lawsuit were mailed on 12/13/02. However, as set forth above, plaintiff has failed to produce the bill that was purportedly mailed in December 2002 or even the notation that was made on the file concerning the mailing, and none of the documents that plaintiff did produce in support of its motion contain any reference to a mailing in December 2002. In fact, the only bill that plaintiff did produce for the dates of service in question is dated April 17, 2007, and plaintiff has offered no evidence concerning the mailing of the 2007 bill. As such, plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that could be introduced at trial so as to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Given the aforementioned reasoning, plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Along this line, it should be noted that plaintiff has failed to establish its prima facie right to judgment as it has failed to demonstrate its timely and proper submission of the claims in question See, Presbyterian Hospital, supra, 90 NY2d 274 (1997), Elmont Open MRI Diagnostic Radiology v. Geico, 2008 NY Slip Op. 50113U, 18 Misc 3d 1117A (Dist.Ct., Nassau Co. 2008). As set forth above, plaintiff has failed to provide admissible proof of mailing of the purported bill dated December 2002. Furthermore, plaintiff has offered no evidence whatsoever to lay a foundation for the admission of the bill dated April 17, 2007. See, e.g. Complete Orthopedic Supplies v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 996 (Civil Ct. Queens Co. 2007). concerning the mailing of the bill dated April 17, 2007 that it has been able to produce.
In sum, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's cross-motion is denied.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.