Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51815(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. (Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.) 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

Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Metropolitan Diagnostic Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Elan Wolkowitz, Respondent,

against

Erie Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered August 5, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,839.34.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the MRIs of plaintiff's assignor's cervical and thoracic spines. The only witness was defendant's doctor, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with 30 years of experience, who also "write[s] papers, and give[s] lectures." He testified that he was the doctor who had prepared the peer review reports concerning the two MRIs at issue in this action and found that the MRIs were not medically necessary. The peer review reports were admitted into evidence, over plaintiff's objection, but the underlying medical records were not admitted into evidence. At the close of the doctor's testimony, each side moved for a directed verdict. The Civil Court, finding that defendant's medical witness was not qualified as an expert and, in any event, that the witness's testimony was not credible, awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,839.34.

The fact that defendant's witness was an orthopedic surgeon and the MRIs at issue were prescribed by a doctor whose specialty is physical medicine and rehabilitation goes to the weight to be given to the testimony and not, contrary to the Civil Court's determination, to the witness's competency to testify as an expert (see Gordon v Tishman Constr. Corp., 264 AD2d 499, 502 [1999]; Smith v City of New York, 238 AD2d 500, 500-501 [1997]; Fine Healing Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 55, 56 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). However, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding that the witness's testimony was not credible.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 16, 2016

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

Metropolitan Diagnostic Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Elan Wolkowitz, Respondent,

against

Erie Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered August 5, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,839.34.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the MRIs of plaintiff's assignor's cervical and thoracic spines. The only witness was defendant's doctor, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with 30 years of experience, who also "write[s] papers, and give[s] lectures." He testified that he was the doctor who had prepared the peer review reports concerning the two MRIs at issue in this action and found that the MRIs were not medically necessary. The peer review reports were admitted into evidence, over plaintiff's objection, but the underlying medical records were not admitted into evidence. At the close of the doctor's testimony, each side moved for a directed verdict. The Civil Court, finding that defendant's medical witness was not qualified as an expert and, in any event, that the witness's testimony was not credible, awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,839.34.

The fact that defendant's witness was an orthopedic surgeon and the MRIs at issue were prescribed by a doctor whose specialty is physical medicine and rehabilitation goes to the weight to be given to the testimony and not, contrary to the Civil Court's determination, to the witness's competency to testify as an expert (see Gordon v Tishman Constr. Corp., 264 AD2d 499, 502 [1999]; Smith v City of New York, 238 AD2d 500, 500-501 [1997]; Fine Healing Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 55, 56 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). However, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding that the witness's testimony was not credible.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 16, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-diagnostic-med-care-pc-v-erie-ins-co-of-ny-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack