Opinion
2016-1377 K C
11-16-2018
ACUPUNCTURE NOW, P.C., as Assignee of Carlos, Illingworth, Respondent, v. GEICO INS. CO., Appellant.
Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered prior to April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule.
The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ). Defendant also demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v. Geico Ins. Co. , 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.