|Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co.|
|2009 NY Slip Op 51502(U) [24 Misc 3d 136(A)]|
|Decided on July 9, 2009|
|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|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J.
Silver, J.), entered February 7, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief,
upon granting the branch of defendant's motion seeking leave to reargue, granted the branch of
defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Order, insofar as appealed from, 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 on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment and argued in opposition to defendant's motion that defendant had failed to come forward with proof that the performed MRI was not medically necessary. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion and plaintiff's cross motion. By order entered February 7, 2008, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion seeking leave to reargue and, upon reargument, summary judgment. As limited by the brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the February 7, 2008 order as granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavit submitted by defendant's claims representative sufficiently established that the denial of claim form at issue was timely mailed pursuant to defendant's standard office practice and procedure (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). As the affirmed report by [*2]defendant's examining physician provided a factual basis and medical rationale for his opinion that the billed-for MRI was not medically necessary (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 142[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52450[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51761[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]), and plaintiff failed to rebut such proof, the Civil Court properly granted defendant summary judgment. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 09, 2009