Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Way Massage Therapy P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Way Massage Therapy P.C.

134 A.D.3d 495, 19 N.Y.S.3d 897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 2015·No. 16383N 653879/13·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Whether or not the fee-sharing arrangement at issue constitutes unprofessional conduct (see 8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [4]), it does not constitute a defense to a no-fault action (compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005] [“insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims”]). It is solely a matter for the appropriate state licensing board (see e.g. Necula v Glass, 231 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1996]; see also H & H Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 1075, 1078 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2015]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Whether or not the fee-sharing arrangement at issue constitutes unprofessional conduct (see 8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [4]), it does not constitute a defense to a no-fault action (compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005] [“insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims”]). It is solely a matter for the appropriate state licensing board (see e.g. Necula v Glass, 231 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1996]; see also H & H Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 1075, 1078 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2015]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Way Massage Therapy P.C., 134 A.D.3d 495, 19 N.Y.S.3d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 495 (Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Way Massage Therapy P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related