From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Renelique v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Oct 13, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51526 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)

Opinion

No. 2014–264 Q C.

10-13-2016

Pierre Jean Jacques RENELIQUE, as Assignee of Brandon Cartie, Appellant, v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INS. CO., Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 11, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff billed for one unit of CPT code 99244 at $236.94 and one unit of CPT code 20553 at $600. Defendant defended this action on the ground that the fees sought exceeded the amounts permitted for those codes by the workers' compensation fee schedule. While plaintiff argues on appeal that the affidavit executed by defendant's coding expert "does not discuss anything specific whatsoever regarding [p]laintiff's claims," defendant also submitted an affidavit executed by its no-fault examiner, who described how the fees for the services at issue had been calculated by multiplying the appropriate "relative value" by the appropriate "conversion factor." Plaintiff's remaining argument with respect to the coding expert's affidavit and the specific argument made by plaintiff with regard to CPT code 99244 were not raised in the Civil Court, and are therefore not properly before this court.

With respect to plaintiff's final argument, which involves CPT code 20553, we find that defendant made a prima facie showing that it had used the assigned relative value for that code to calculate the sum to which plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed. While plaintiff submitted a doctor's affidavit addressing CPT code 20553, the doctor's conclusion is based upon the unsupported allegation that CPT code 20553 is a "by report" code, meaning that it does not have a relative value. This allegation does not rebut defendant's proof that CPT code 20553 does have a relative value.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


Summaries of

Renelique v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Oct 13, 2016
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51526 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)
Case details for

Renelique v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of BRANDON CARTIE, Appellant…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Oct 13, 2016

Citations

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51526 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)
46 N.Y.S.3d 476

Citing Cases

Balance Art Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC

To meet its prima facie burden that it fully paid the claims in accordance with the fee schedule, the…

Demas v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

" Insurance Law § 5108 provides, with some exceptions, that charges for services covered under Insurance Law…