2017 Mass.App.Div. 145, Innovative Physician Services, LLC v. The Premier Insurance Company of Massachusetts
|Citation:||2017 Mass.App.Div. 145|
|Opinion Judge:||MCGILL, J.|
|Party Name:||INNOVATIVE PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC  v. THE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS and another |
|Attorney:||Stephen L. Holstrom for the plaintiff. William Tait and Bruce Medoff for the defendant. Michael H. Hayden for the intervener.|
|Judge Panel:||Present: Noonan, Despotopulos & McGill, JJ|
|Case Date:||September 18, 2017|
|Court:||Massachusetts Appellate Division|
February 12, 2016
Stephen L. Holstrom for the plaintiff.
William Tait and Bruce Medoff for the defendant.
Michael H. Hayden for the intervener.
Present: Noonan, Despotopulos & McGill, JJ. 3
This matter is before the Appellate Division on appeal by Innovative Physician Services, LLC, d/b/a Team Rehab and Wellness Center ("Team") from an adverse ruling granting summary judgment on all counts in favor of The Premier Insurance Company of Massachusetts ("Premier"). 4
This case arises from two contracts: (1) between Premier's parent company, Travelers Insurance, and CorVel Healthcare Corporation ("CorVel"), adding Travelers and its subsidiaries to CorVel's "Payor" list; and (2) between Team and CorVel ("Team-CorVel contract"), adding Team to CorVel's "Provider" list. The Payors and Providers make up CorVel's preferred services network ("PPO").
On appeal, the issues before this Division are whether the Team-CorVel contract is invalid ab initio, whether summary judgment was incorrectly granted to Premier, whether the Team-CorVel contract includes sufficient consideration, and whether Premier has a right to enforce the Team-CorVel contract.
The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117 , 120 (1991). Entry of summary judgment "will be upheld when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the nonmoving party 'has no reasonable expectation
of proving an essential element of its case.'" Farynaz v. Burwen, No. 09-P-49 (Mass.App.Ct. Dec. 18, 2009) (unpublished Rule 1:28 decision), quoting Miller v. Mooney, 431 Mass. 57 , 60 (2000). An opposing party "cannot not rest upon his or her pleadings and mere assertions of disputed facts." LaLonde v. Eissner, 405 Mass. 207 , 209 (1989).
The first part of Team's argument is that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP