Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

[*1] Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 27380 Decided on November 27, 2017 District Court Of Suffolk County, Third District Matthews, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 27, 2017
District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C., A/A/O RIMONDS BLOT, Plaintiff,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Defendant.



CV-2057-16/HU
James F. Matthews, J.

Upon the following papers numbered 1-4 read on this motion by defendant:

Notice of Motion and supporting papers 1-2

Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers

Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 3

Affirmations in Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion

Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 4

Filed papers

After due deliberation, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted solely to the extent that the amount in dispute is reduced to $9,160.08 based upon the uncontested merits of its fee schedule defense. In all other respects, defendant's motion is denied. Based upon the submissions of the parties, the court finds that plaintiff has established its prima facie case and defendant has established its timely denial of the assigned no-fault benefits at issue. There exists material facts in dispute as to the medical necessity of the treatment provided to plaintiff's assignor, which must be decided at a trial.

This is an action to recover assigned no-fault benefits for treatment rendered to plaintiff's assignor for injuries claimed to have been sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 30, 2012. Defendant's motion for summary judgment seeks dismissal of the [*2]complaint on three separate grounds: (1) lack of medical necessity for the treatment; (2) billing in excess of the applicable fee schedule; and (3) lack of authority to do business in the State of New Jersey where the treatment was rendered, by reason of the failure of plaintiff corporation to obtain a certificate of authority to transact business, prior to the time the treatment was rendered.

As to the issue of medical necessity, both sides submitted detailed affidavits of qualified professionals regarding the reasons why the treatment rendered was or was not medically necessary. Based upon a careful review of these affidavits, the court is constrained to rule that relevant and material factual issues exist regarding the medical necessity of the subject services.

Regarding the fee schedule defense, defendant submits proof in the form of an affidavit by Timothy Schultz, a certified coder, to establish that the amount allowable by the applicable New Jersey fee schedule for the services rendered is $9,160.08. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to rebut this proof. Accordingly, the court grants this branch of defendant's motion and reduces the amount in issue to $9,160.08.

Defendant also seeks dismissal of all of the claims because plaintiff, a New York professional corporation, was not authorized to transact business in the State of New Jersey as of the dates of the treatment for which payment is sought herein. That fact is not disputed. Plaintiff became authorized to transact business in the State of New Jersey on January 5, 2015. This action was commenced on December 1, 2016 when service was duly effectuated on defendant. Plaintiff claims that the failure to obtain the requisite certificate of authority was a technical violation that does not warrant granting the drastic relief of claim preclusion urged by defendant. The parties submitted conflicting arbitration awards on this issue. It appears that this is a case of first impression as the court is not aware of any other judicial determinations of this issue.

The reasoning urged by defendant and set forth in the arbitration awards relied upon is that plaintiff violated the New York no-fault regulations by not having been qualified to do business in New Jersey by reason of having failed to obtain a certificate of authority as required by New Jersey Law at N.J.S.A. § 14A:13-3. The New York regulation relied upon by defendant is found at 11 NYCRR § 65-3.16(a)(12), which provides as follows:

(12) A provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102(a)(1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York or meet any applicable licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in any other state in which such service is performed (emphasis added).

Defendant urges the court to interpret the pertinent part of the regulation to be that the failure of the plaintiff health care corporation to timely obtain the requisite certificate of authority for a foreign corporation to transact business means the insurer is not obligated to pay for otherwise valid billing for medical treatment. The court disagrees. There is no dispute that the health care professionals who rendered treatment for which payment is demanded met all of the licensing requirements of the State of New Jersey to perform the health care services rendered to plaintiff's assignor. The court therefore concludes that no violation of the New York no-fault regulations has been established under the facts presented in this case. The court determines that the cited regulation does not apply to the corporate certificate requirement at issue in this case.

However, even if the court were to find that the aforesaid no fault regulation applied in this case, the court would still conclude that the failure to obtain the certificate of authority to [*3]transact business in New Jersey would not in and of itself preclude recovery of payment for the no-fault health care benefits provided. New Jersey Law explicitly proscribes the impact of transacting business without the certificate of authority. N.J.S.A. § 14A:13-11 provides as follows:

14A:13-11. Transacting business without certificate of authority(1) No foreign corporation transacting business in this State without a certificate of authority shall maintain any action or proceeding in any court of this State, until such corporation shall have obtained a certificate of authority. This prohibition shall apply to(a) any successor in interest of such foreign corporation, except any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy or other representative of creditors of such corporation; and(b) any assignee of the foreign corporation, except an assignee for value who accepts an assignment without knowledge that the foreign corporation should have but has not obtained a certificate of authority in this State.(2) The failure of a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority to transact business in this State shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of such corporation, and shall not prevent such corporation from defending any action or proceeding in any court of this State.(3) In addition to any other liabilities imposed by law, a foreign corporation which transacts business in this State without a certificate of authority shall forfeit to the State a penalty of not less than $200.00, nor more than $1,000.00 for each calendar year, not more than 5 years prior thereto, in which it shall have transacted business in this State without a certificate of authority. Such penalty shall be recovered with costs in an action prosecuted by the Attorney General. The court may proceed in such action in a summary manner or otherwise.

This statute provides that the non-authorized foreign corporation may not maintain an action in New Jersey until such corporation has obtained a certificate of authority to transact business . Even if this were to apply to a New York action, the plaintiff was in fact authorized to transact business in New Jersey at the time the action was commenced. The statute also expressly provides that the failure to obtain the certificate "shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of such corporation." This clearly includes the validity of the assignment of an insured's contractual right to no-fault benefits, as well as the "acts" of the duly licensed health care professional rendering the treatment for which payment is sought. Finally, the statute imposes monetary penalties for failure to obtain the requisite certificate of authority to transact business.

Thus, the State of New Jersey has in place the means by which foreign corporations who fail to obtain a certificate of authority are penalized. None of the statutory penalties includes the relief requested by defendant in its motion. The harsh penalty of claim preclusion requested by defendant is not required by New Jersey Law and would thwart the purpose and intent of the New York no-fault law and regulations. It would amount to a windfall for insurers who would otherwise be obligated to pay for medically necessary services rendered to victims of motor vehicle accidents.

The court also notes that failure to obtain the certificate of authority in this case does not [*4]amount to fraud that would be "good cause" for denial of payment as set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 322, 794 N.Y.S.2d 700, 703 (2005). Without proof of fraudulent intent, the court finds the failure to obtain a certificate of authority to transact business in this case was a technical violation for which alternate penalties are provided by New Jersey law. Therefore, such conduct cannot be solely relied upon by insurers to delay or withhold payment of otherwise valid no-fault billing.

Dated: November 27, 2017

Hon. James F. Matthews

J.D.C. (No.109)