Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 8, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51154(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Acupuncture Now, P.C., as Assignee of Singh, Deonarine, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 26, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fifth causes of action and to compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fifth causes of action and to compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition.

Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to establish that defendant's fee reductions, which had been done in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, were proper. However, this court has held, "as a matter of law, that an insurer may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to [*2]receive for such acupuncture services" (Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23, 24 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Since defendant is defending the remaining cause of action on the ground that the services rendered lacked medical necessity, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition (see Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51737[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI