Zuckerberg v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

New York Court of Appeals

Zuckerberg v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

490 N.E.2d 839, 67 N.Y.2d 688, 499 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16627

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 490 N.E.2d 839 (Zuckerberg v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zuckerberg v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 490 N.E.2d 839, 67 N.Y.2d 688, 499 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16627 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree that plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proving that Hospital La Gloria provided "medical and surgical or obstetrical care” as contemplated by the definition of "hospital” contained in the Blue Cross community rated contract. Because the contract definition of "hospital” is clear and unambiguous, there is no basis here for application of the "substantial compliance” doctrine.

Thus, it is unnecessary to reach any of the other issues raised by plaintiff.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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