Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51602(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 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

Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., as Assignee of Ferary Masani, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Arthur T. Kontaxis of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 30, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered after April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Since 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii), effective April 1, 2013 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g] [2]), provides that "no payment shall be due for . . . claimed medical services under any circumstances . . . for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108 (a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered by medical providers" (see also Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), plaintiff's sole issue on appeal, regarding defendant's denial of claim form, is without merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018

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

Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., as Assignee of Ferary Masani, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Arthur T. Kontaxis of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 30, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered after April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Since 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii), effective April 1, 2013 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g] [2]), provides that "no payment shall be due for . . . claimed medical services under any circumstances . . . for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108 (a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered by medical providers" (see also Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), plaintiff's sole issue on appeal, regarding defendant's denial of claim form, is without merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parisien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parisien-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2018.