Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Larendon Natl. Ins. Co.

[*1] Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Larendon Natl. Ins. Co. 2010 NY Slip Op 51452(U) [28 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on August 12, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 12, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2008-2232 K C.

Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. a/a/o WILHELMINA LAING, Appellant,

against

Larendon National Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered October 15, 2008. The order granted defendant's 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had timely denied plaintiff's claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity and that, based on an annexed affirmed peer review report, it had established that the medical supplies
provided were not medically necessary. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that defendant had failed to establish the timely mailing of its denial of claim form and
that defendant had failed to annex copies of the medical reports and/or records upon which the peer reviewer had relied in reaching his conclusion that the supplies provided were not medically necessary. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion, finding that plaintiff had failed to rebut defendant's showing of a lack of medical necessity.

The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely denied the claim at issue on the ground of lack of medical necessity (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; 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 & [*2]11th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact since it failed to 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 stated that it was not in possession of all the information and documents relied upon by defendant's peer reviewer, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it needed said documents in order to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the services at issue were medically necessary when they were rendered (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; GZ Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 146[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50491[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]), and that it had served discovery demands during the ample opportunity that it had to commence discovery proceedings to obtain such records before the instant summary judgment motion was brought (see Meath v Mishrick, 68 NY2d 992 [1986]; Urban Radiology, P.C., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U]). Accordingly, the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 12, 2010