A.I.D. Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] A.I.D. Med. Supplies v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 51044(U) [15 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on May 23, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 23, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, J.P., McCOOE, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570523/06.

A.I.D. Medical Supplies & Inter- trade, Inc. a/a/o David Trevino, Daniel Sierra, Alejandro Rodriguez Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

GEICO General Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez J.), dated October 18, 2005, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $6,139.59.


PER CURIAM:

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez J.), dated October 18, 2005, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and matter remanded for further proceedings.

In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant raised a triable issue of fact by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff's no-fault claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity based upon a peer review report. "The applicable regulations provide that if a no-fault claim is denied in whole or in part based on a medical examination or peer review report requested by the insurer, then the insurer shall release a copy of that report to, among others, the applicant or its attorney, upon written request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[b][4]). Had it been the intent of the Department of Insurance to require the carrier to set forth a medical rationale in the prescribed denial of claim form (see NYS Form N-F 10; 11 NYCRR 65-3.4[c][11]), it would have so provided" (A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Geico Cas. Ins. Co., AD3d , 2007 NY Slip Op. 03635 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
[*2]
Decision Date: May 23, 2007

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.