Globe Surgical Supply v. Geico Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 30 December 2008 |
Docket Number | 2006-07878.,2007-00061. |
Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 10583,59 A.D.3d 129,871 N.Y.S.2d 263 |
Parties | GLOBE SURGICAL SUPPLY, as Assignee of REMY GALLANT, Appellant, v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Locks Law Firm, PLLC, New York City (Seth R. Lesser and Andrew P. Bell of counsel), and Manoussos & Associates, Garden City, for appellant (one brief filed).
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, New York City (Ralph P. DeSanto, Paul R. Koepff and Benjamin B. Bianco of counsel), for respondent.
These appeals require us to address whether it is appropriate to certify a class action challenging the validity, under regulations in effect prior to October 6, 2004, of a no-fault insurer's use of the prevailing geographic rate or the reasonable and customary rate for health care services in calculating first-party benefits due to a claimant or health-care provider.
In 2004 the plaintiff, Globe Surgical Supply (hereinafter Globe), as assignee of Remy Gallant, commenced the instant class action alleging, inter alia, that the defendant, GEICO Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO), violated the regulations promulgated by the New York State Insurance Department (hereinafter the Insurance Department) pursuant to the no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law, by systematically reducing its reimbursement for medical equipment and supplies, specifically, durable medical equipment (hereinafter DME), based on what it deemed to be "the prevailing rate in the geographic location of the provider," or "the reasonable and customary rate for the item billed." Specifically, Globe alleges that GEICO wrongfully adjusted or reduced reimbursement payments of claims for DME subject to former part E (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C) (hereinafter former Part E) of the 23rd Amendment to Insurance Department Regulation 83 (11 NYCRR part 68), to an amount less than the amount charged in the proof of claim.
The Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (Insurance Law §§ 5101-5109 [hereinafter the No-Fault Law]) provides for the payment of first-party benefits to persons injured in automobile accidents involving New York State residents and/or vehicles registered in the state (see Insurance Law § 5103 [a]). "First party benefits" are defined as "payments to reimburse a person for basic economic loss" (Insurance Law § 5102 [b]). "Basic economic loss" includes "all necessary expenses incurred for . . . medical, hospital . . . and prosthetic services," such as DME (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1]). "Payments hereunder for necessary medical expenses shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of section 5108 of the New York Insurance Law" (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). Insurance Law § 5108 authorizes the Superintendent of Insurance (hereinafter the Superintendent) to establish a fee schedule for DME, which had been, at all times relevant to this appeal, set forth in former Part E. Former Part E regulated and set the amount of reimbursement to providers of DME as follows: "[f]or medical equipment and supplies (e.g., TENS units, soft cervical collars) provided by a physician or medical equipment supplier, the maximum permissible charge is 150 percent of the documented cost of the equipment to the provider."1
The Superintendent also promulgated Regulation 68, codified at 11 NYCRR part 65, to provide the specific procedural details for the payment of benefits. Under Regulation 68, the injured party is required to notify the insurer and to submit a written proof of claim for medical treatment no later than 45 days after services are rendered. Typically, as is the case here, the insured party orders DME from the supplier (e.g. Globe) and the supplier is assigned the right to claim reimbursement. Upon receipt of proof of claim, an insurer has 15 business days within which to request "any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim" (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]). An insurance company must pay or deny the claim within 30 calendar days after receipt of the proof of claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). "In the event any person making a claim for first-party benefits and the Company do not agree regarding any matter relating to the claim, such person shall have the option of submitting such disagreement to arbitration" (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]).
Specifically, Globe alleged that its assignor, Remy Gallant, was injured in an accident on February 10, 2001, with a GEICO policyholder. According to the complaint, Gallant purchased a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (hereinafter the TENS unit) from Globe, which cost $340. Globe submitted the claim to GEICO, as assignee of Gallant, in the amount of $510 (representing 150% of the actual cost). On May 23, 2001, GEICO denied the claim for that amount and only reimbursed Globe in the amount of $200. As noted on Gallant's claim form, GEICO partially denied the claim because the cost submitted was
Globe purportedly commenced this action on behalf of itself and all members of a class "consisting of all persons who had reimbursement payments of claims for medical equipment and supplies subject to [former] Part E of the Twenty-Third Amendment to Regulation No. 83 (11 NYCRR 68) (`Part E Reimbursements') adjusted or reduced by Geico."
Prior to the submission of the motion at issue on this appeal, the parties conducted discovery, which included the depositions of Globe's principal, Jean M. Francois, and a supervisor at GEICO, Valerie Coffey. Francois testified that he owned Globe, which dispenses DME to patients. Francois acknowledged that P.Z.F. Management Company, Inc., was the actual name of the company doing business as Globe. During his deposition, Francois invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when asked questions about shareholders' meetings, tax preparation, his arrest for insurance fraud,2 and his knowledge of other supply companies. Francois stated that, during the normal course of business, he paid for DME by check. Repeatedly throughout his deposition, Francois was shown documents that had the same invoice number and dates but represented the purchase of two different items of DME. Francois was also shown documents from Allstate Insurance Company representing the same invoice numbers submitted for various DME items. Francois had no explanation as to why he submitted the same invoice number numerous times to GEICO, representing the purchase of different items of DME. When asked to explain why the same invoice for the purchase of one lumbosacral support custom fabric was submitted 15 times to both GEICO and All-state, Francois responded: "since that's what I pay for it and I stick with that one invoice and send it out . . . it wasn't required or specifically by any insurance company to ask me to send that specific invoice that matches the claim."
Valerie Coffey averred that she was the personal injury protection manager and supervisor at GEICO's Woodbury office, which processed no-fault claims during the relevant time period. Coffey testified that state guidelines required receipt of proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P., Index No. 603468/2009
...Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d at 482; Enqlade v. HarperCollins Pubis., 289 A.D.2d at 160; Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 139-40 (2d Dep't 2008). To accommodate individual considerations in damage calculations further, the court may define subclasses or......
-
Dugan ex rel. All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.
...at 482, 884 N.Y.S.2d 413;Englade v. HarperCollins Publs., 289 A.D.2d at 160, 734 N.Y.S.2d 176;Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 139–40, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dep't 2008). To accommodate individual considerations in damage calculations further, the court may define subcl......
-
Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.
...Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Constr. Inc., 65 A.D.3d at 482; Englade v. HarperCollins Pubis., 289 A.D.2d at 160; Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 139-40 (2d Dep't 2008). To accommodate individual considerations in damage calculations further, the court may define subclasses or......
-
Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC
...743, 992 N.Y.S.2d 95, quoting Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d 179, 191, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179 ; see Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 136–137, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263 ; Weinstein–Korn–Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 901.20 [2d ed 2004] ). Here, the plaintiffs' arguments with resp......
-
New York State class actions: make it work - fulfill the promise.
...but which, in the aggregate, can total many thousands or even millions of dollars."). (12) See Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 144-45, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263, 274-75 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008) (affirming lower court's dismissal of plaintiff medical supplier's proposed class......