Ostia Med., PC v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51560(U) (NY 12/26/2003)
| Decision Date | 26 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | 51560. |
| Citation | 2003 NY Slip Op 51560(U) |
| Parties | OSTIA MEDICAL, PC, a/o COMRIE SOCORRO, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant. <P>        HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o ROSS LYNCH, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o NICOLE BLUME, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). QUEENS BLVD MEDICAL, PC, a/o MICHAEL KHAKHAMOV, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o VAILORIS CANELO, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CPT MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o LILYA ZILBERMAN, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o FREDDIE ESCOBAR, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s).<BR></P> <P>        HOSS MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, PC a/o BARBARA FYE, ALLA BRESLER, ANTHONY GRAFFEO and BEVERLY CLARKE, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HILDA-BLOOR MEDICAL, PC, a/o MIGUEL DEJESUS, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). ALL HEALTH MEDICAL CARTE, PC a/o REGINALD BALTHAZAR, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). HEMPSTEAD PAIN & MEDICAL SVCS., PC a/o DOLORES WASHINGTON, SUTTON AVIS HAUGHTON AVIS, MADGE COLVIL and CUPID COLVIL, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). I.K. MEDICAL, PC, a/a/o HASIJE DANOVIC and ROLAND NEMET, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). I.K. MEDICAL PC, a/a/o ROLAND NEMET and HASIJE DANOVIC, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL, PC, a/a/o OLGA BAEZ, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). WOODSIDE PAIN MANAGEMENT, PC, a/a/o YOSELIN RODRIGUEZ and RAMON MONZON, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). COMP. MENTAL ASSMNT & MED. CARE, PC, a/o CRAIG GOPIE and CYNTHIA CARDNERBRIM,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). E.N.A. MEDICAL SUPPLY INC., a/o VANESSE DIAZ MAHIPALSINGH and BARRY MCCLAIN, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). BRIGHT MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP., a/o EWA WEGLARZ, MAYA SUYUNOVA and SEMKHO DAVIDOV, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). ANTHONY S. DESANO, DC, a/o MARIA LACAYO, HERMENIA STARCHIA, LOIS NOWINSKI and BONNI ROBBINS, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). ANTHONY S. DESANO, DC, a/o DENISE KOJAK LEE MARY NJOKU, CRISTOPHER GIACALONE, MICHAEL PAYAWAL and VIRGINIA HENNESSY, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CAPIO MEDICA, PC, a/o YURIY AGINSKIY, VLADISLAV ZOLOTAREVSKIY, VLADISLAV ZOLOTAREVS and ALEKSANDR GOLOVANEVSKY, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s).<BR></P> <P>        OSTIA MEDICAL, PC, a/o MARK MILLER and CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). ALL HEALTH MEDICAL CARE, PC, a/o KHAY PINKHASOV and ROMAN MATATOV, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). NORTHERN MEDICAL, PC, a/o ALEJANDRO RIOS and ELCHIN YUSUFOV, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). KIM ACUPUNCTURE, PC, a/o GILDA NARVAEZ,<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s).<BR></P> <P>        CPT MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o JOY TAYLOR and CRAIG GOPIE, Plaintiff(s) v.<BR></P> <P>        GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s).<BR></P> <P>        ARNOLD WEISMAN, DDS, a/o ALI RATIB, MARCO VALENCIANO, MARIA CASTANO and JOSE CASTANO,<SMALL><SUP>3</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v.<BR></P> <P>        GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). KLM TRADING, LTD, a/o ELIZABETH RETMOR and ESTHER COBBS,<SMALL><SUP>4</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). LUSTER, INC., a/o BRYAN MEGHER, GULSHAN THANDI and DOROTHY SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). OSTIA MEDICAL, PC, a/o JEANNIE GOLDSTON and GREGORY MOORE, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). ALL HEALTH MEDICAL CARE, PC, a/o YAKUB MALAKOV and YOCHEVED CHEIN,<SMALL><SUP>5</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CPT MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o ELISHA AJAYI, AMOS REECE, ELLA REECE and KECIA DALTON,<SMALL><SUP>6</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). NASSAU-SUFFOLK CHIROPRACTIC, PC, a/o RUANO IRAZEMA and ABIGAIL ORTIZ,<SMALL><SUP>7</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). EAST COAST MEDICAL CARE, PC, a/o ELIZABETH HERRERA, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). BIG APPLE ACUPUNCTURE, PC a/o YSIDRO REYES, and YASMI GOMEZ,<SMALL><SUP>8</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CPT MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o NEMET ROLAND,<SMALL><SUP>9</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). EAST COAST PSYCHOLOGICAL, PC, a/o IVA WILSON, MARION LOCKHART, FRANDIE LEFTWICH, PAULINA ZUNILDA and ALAN LARIOS,<SMALL><SUP>10</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CENTRAL AVENUE CHIROPRACTIC, PC a/o FRED TILCIO and ERIC BASKERVILLE,<SMALL><SUP>11</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). NORTHERN MEDICAL, PC, a/o LISA FOX and VANESSA SADANO, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). RELIABLE MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, a/o ELAINE TAYLOR, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). BIG APPLE ACUPUNCTURE, PC, a/o, BRYANT SANCHEZ, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). TRANSCO TRANSPORTATION SVCS, INC., a/o ERNESTINA COLLADO, YSIDRO REYES and YASMIN GOMES, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s).<BR></P> <P>        LUSTER INC., a/o MARTINZA CHARLES, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, PC a/o CUERIN FERNANDERS, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CENTRAL AVENUE CHIROPRACTIC, PC, a/o MIRIAM MELO LINA KING, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). CPT MEDICAL SERVICES PC, a/o CHARLOTTE DODART FLORRIE MILLS, VLADIMIR VILENSKIY and ELEN GORODETSKY, Plaintiff(s) v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., Defendant(s). |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The following named papers numbered 1 to 4 were submitted on this Notice of Motion on July 18, November 5, November 20 and November 24, 2003:
>Papers numbered
Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1-2
Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed
Answering Affidavits 3
Reply Affidavits 4
The forty-eight (48) cases listed in the above caption have been joined for the purposes of the instant motion only. The plaintiffs (hereinafter "plaintiff" or "medical provider") are all medical providers, being represented by the same law firm, and the defendant in all forty-eight (48) cases is Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter "GEICO" or "insurance carrier") . In all of the actions, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of no-fault benefits from GEICO, due to medical services provided to the plaintiff's assignors, for injuries allegedly resulting from various motor vehicle accidents.
The plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), for a protective order vacating GEICO's notice to compel the examination before trial (hereinafter "EBT") of the medical provider. The plaintiff claims that as a matter of law, the defendant is not entitled to an EBT of the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff requests that if the Court should deny the plaintiff's motion for a protective order, then the Court order supervised discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3104. GEICO opposes the plaintiff's motion and cross-moves for an order granting costs and sanctions.
The legislature's intent in enacting the no-fault law was to ensure that every automobile accident victim be compensated for substantially all of his or her basic economic loss (i.e., first party benefits12) promptly, without regard to fault and to significantly reduce the number of automobile personal injury cases litigated in the courts (see, Johnson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 100 Misc.2d 367, 418 N.Y.S.2d 1009 [Sup Ct Monroe County 1979]; Licari v. Elliot, 52 N.Y.2d 230 [1982]; Zlatnick v. GEICO, N.Y.L.J. 12/8/03, p. 21, col.1, 2003 WL 22849608, 2003 NY Slip Op. 23870 [Civil Court, Queens County], citing Medical Society of State of New York v. Serio, 100 N.Y.2d 853 (2003). Contrary to the legislature's intent, however, in a large number of cases, prompt compensation is not occurring. Rather, medical providers, who have been assigned the injured victim's right to first party benefits are resorting to litigation in New York courtrooms for recovery of first party benefits. In recent years, the Nassau County District Court, as well as many courts of limited jurisdiction in New York State, have become swamped with no-fault litigation for the recovery of first party benefits. Due to the recent influx of no-fault litigation, this Court has had to tackle numerous first impression, no-fault substantive and procedural issues. In fact, this Court has set up no-fault discovery conference calendars, to help ease the burden on the Court and to try to promote the intent of the legislature (i.e., prompt payment and/or resolution of no-fault claims).
The Court finds the legal issues presented in the parties' respective motion papers to be as follows:
(1) Is an insurance carrier entitled to an EBT of a medical provider under the CPLR and the UDCA?
(2) Is an insurance carrier entitled to an EBT of a medical provider, as well as answers to interrogatories in a No-Fault Action?
(3) Is an insurance carrier entitled to an EBT of a medical provider, under the No-Fault Regulations, if it failed to request an oral Examination Under Oath under the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations?
(4) Is the insurance carrier estopped from requesting an EBT of a medical provider because the insurance carrier failed to seek additional verification, under the New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial