Bailey v. Garden State Hospitalization Plan

675 A.2d 696, 290 N.J. Super. 277, 1996 N.J. Super. LEXIS 198
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMay 16, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 675 A.2d 696 (Bailey v. Garden State Hospitalization Plan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bailey v. Garden State Hospitalization Plan, 675 A.2d 696, 290 N.J. Super. 277, 1996 N.J. Super. LEXIS 198 (N.J. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Garden State Hospital Plan appeals from orders of December 14, 1994 and March 16, 1994 in the Law Division adjudicating its obligation to pay certain medical expenses of plaintiff Christina Bailey. Garden State contends on appeal that: (1) the judge “erred in requiring a secondary health care provider to pay benefits prior to the exhaustion of all applicable personal injury protection benefits,” (2) the “plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof,” and (3) the judge “erred in granting plaintiff benefits not available under the plan of insurance.” We affirm the ruling on the coverage dispute for the reasons given by Judge Longhi in his published opinion, 280 N.J.Super. 206, 654 A.2d 1043 (Law Div.1994). See N.J.A.C. 11:3-37.9.

We also affirm the judge’s ruling that plaintiffs first admission at Kessler Rehabilitation Institute from May 10 to June 8,1994 was primarily for medical treatment rather than rehabilitative purposes, for the reasons given by Judge Longhi at the conclusion of the factual hearing on this issue. This conclusion was essentially a factual determination based on ample credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84, 323 A.2d 495 (1974).

Nothing which we have ruled upon in affirming Judge Longhi’s decision as to plaintiffs eligibility for Garden State’s coverage should be construed to deprive Garden State of its right to review the expenses which may have been paid to date by the PIP carrier Prudential Insurance company and to resist its contribution toward those payments on the ground that such payments were not “reasonable and necessary” in the circumstances, if such ground indeed exists. See N.J.A.C. 11:3-37.2.1

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 A.2d 696, 290 N.J. Super. 277, 1996 N.J. Super. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-garden-state-hospitalization-plan-njsuperctappdiv-1996.