Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

16 Misc. 3d 10

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 4, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Misc. 3d 10 (Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance) 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

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance, 16 Misc. 3d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that defendant’s NF-10 denial of claim form, which alleged the lack of medical necessity, failed to assert sufficient facts and a medical rationale based thereon to set forth, with the requisite specificity, a proper ground for the denial. The court denied the motion, finding the denial form’s reference to a negative peer review report sufficient to apprise plaintiff of the basis of its determination that the medical services provided were medically unnecessary. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm (A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 [2d Dept 2007]). To the extent that A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (12 Misc 3d 30 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]) and related cases are to the contrary, they should no longer be followed (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]).

Pesce, BJ., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that defendant’s NF-10 denial of claim form, which alleged the lack of medical necessity, failed to assert sufficient facts and a medical rationale based thereon to set forth, with the requisite specificity, a proper ground for the denial. The court denied the motion, finding the denial form’s reference to a negative peer review report sufficient to apprise plaintiff of the basis of its determination that the medical services provided were medically unnecessary. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm (A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 [2d Dept 2007]). To the extent that A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (12 Misc 3d 30 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]) and related cases are to the contrary, they should no longer be followed (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]).

Pesce, BJ., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 3d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delta-diagnostic-radiology-pc-v-american-transit-insurance-nyappterm-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack