Zuckerman v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zuckerman v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

155 Misc. 2d 271, 598 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 183

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 Misc. 2d 271 (Zuckerman v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield) 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

Zuckerman v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 155 Misc. 2d 271, 598 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered July 29, 1992 affirmed with $10 costs.

[272]*272We agree that the terms of the health insurance policy issued by defendant were sufficiently broad to provide coverage for the replacement hairpiece prescribed by plaintiffs treating physician. The policy terms provided coverage for "prosthetic and orthotic appliances which support or replace part or all of a body function or organ or replacement, repair, fitting and adjustment of such devices when prescribed by a practitioner.” A hairpiece of the kind worn by plaintiff is readily encompassed within the policy term "prosthetic appliance”, the word "prosthesis” being defined as "an artificial device to replace a missing part of the body”. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1822.) Indeed, that a hairpiece comes within the definitional term "prosthetic appliance” is confirmed by the defendant’s own internal practice, undisputed on this record, of providing reimbursement on claims involving hairpieces necessitated by baldness resulting from chemotherapy or radiation treatments. Similarly, the average layperson reading defendant’s policy might reasonably conclude that the growth or, more pertinently here, the complete loss of scalp hair was included within the ambit of the broad term "body function”. There is at least an ambiguity in the policy provisions, which under well-settled principles governing interpretation of insurance contracts, must be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer (see, Levanant v General Acc. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 623, 629; Knudsen v Field, 185 AD2d 765). Nor has defendant come forward with evidentiary proof to rebut plaintiffs medical affidavits attesting to the bona fides and emotional sequelae of the medical condition— known as alopecia areata — which has necessitated plaintiffs use of a hairpiece.

Ostrau, P. J., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered July 29, 1992 affirmed with $10 costs.

[272]*272We agree that the terms of the health insurance policy issued by defendant were sufficiently broad to provide coverage for the replacement hairpiece prescribed by plaintiffs treating physician. The policy terms provided coverage for "prosthetic and orthotic appliances which support or replace part or all of a body function or organ or replacement, repair, fitting and adjustment of such devices when prescribed by a practitioner.” A hairpiece of the kind worn by plaintiff is readily encompassed within the policy term "prosthetic appliance”, the word "prosthesis” being defined as "an artificial device to replace a missing part of the body”. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1822.) Indeed, that a hairpiece comes within the definitional term "prosthetic appliance” is confirmed by the defendant’s own internal practice, undisputed on this record, of providing reimbursement on claims involving hairpieces necessitated by baldness resulting from chemotherapy or radiation treatments. Similarly, the average layperson reading defendant’s policy might reasonably conclude that the growth or, more pertinently here, the complete loss of scalp hair was included within the ambit of the broad term "body function”. There is at least an ambiguity in the policy provisions, which under well-settled principles governing interpretation of insurance contracts, must be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer (see, Levanant v General Acc. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 623, 629; Knudsen v Field, 185 AD2d 765). Nor has defendant come forward with evidentiary proof to rebut plaintiffs medical affidavits attesting to the bona fides and emotional sequelae of the medical condition— known as alopecia areata — which has necessitated plaintiffs use of a hairpiece.

Ostrau, P. J., Miller and McCooe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 Misc. 2d 271, 598 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuckerman-v-empire-blue-cross-blue-shield-nyappterm-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack