Egan v. Dawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Egan v. Dawson

207 A.D.2d 1016, 616 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10288

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1016 (Egan v. Dawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Egan v. Dawson, 207 A.D.2d 1016, 616 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The rolling treatments received by Claudia P, Egan (plaintiff) are not "other professional health services” under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (iv) because rolling is not a service licensed by the State of New York (see, 11 NYCRR 65.15 [o] [1] [vi]). Nevertheless, there is a question of fact whether the rolling treatments received by plaintiff were a necessary treatment to restore her health so that they may qualify as "rehabilitation” under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (ii) (see, Hernandez v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 146 Misc 2d 938, 941). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—No-Fault Benefits.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The rolling treatments received by Claudia P, Egan (plaintiff) are not "other professional health services” under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (iv) because rolling is not a service licensed by the State of New York (see, 11 NYCRR 65.15 [o] [1] [vi]). Nevertheless, there is a question of fact whether the rolling treatments received by plaintiff were a necessary treatment to restore her health so that they may qualify as "rehabilitation” under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (ii) (see, Hernandez v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 146 Misc 2d 938, 941). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—No-Fault Benefits.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1016, 616 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/egan-v-dawson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack