BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 10, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50743(U)

StatusPublished

This text of BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co. (BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO 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

BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

BQE Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of McCord, Genell, Appellant,

against

GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered August 31, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 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 properly used the workers' compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors who render the same services as acupuncturists to reimburse plaintiff for the acupuncture services plaintiff had rendered. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claims forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant further demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Consequently, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

We note that plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this court, as this argument is being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019

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

BQE Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of McCord, Genell, Appellant,

against

GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered August 31, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 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 properly used the workers' compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors who render the same services as acupuncturists to reimburse plaintiff for the acupuncture services plaintiff had rendered. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claims forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant further demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Consequently, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

We note that plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this court, as this argument is being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bqe-acupuncture-pc-v-geico-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack