Viviane Etienne Med. Care v. Country–wide Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 2011
• Citation: 919 N.Y.S.2d 759,31 Misc.3d 21,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21039
• Parties: VIVIANE ETIENNE MEDICAL CARE, P.C. as Assignee of Alem Cardenas, Appellant,v.COUNTRY–WIDE INS. CO., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

31 Misc.3d 21

919 N.Y.S.2d 759

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21039

VIVIANE ETIENNE MEDICAL CARE, P.C. as Assignee of Alem Cardenas, Appellant,

v.COUNTRY–WIDE INS. CO., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts.

Feb. 8, 2011.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Max Velerio of counsel), for appellant.Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York City (Jean H. King of counsel), for respondent.

Present: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered March 6, 2009. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to that relief. We agree.

A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission to the defendant of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30–day period ( see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 A.D.3d 512, 818 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2006]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 A.D.3d 742, 774 N.Y.S.2d 564 [2004]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 A.D.3d 1168, 911 N.Y.S.2d 907 [2010] ). In order for the claim forms to constitute prima facie proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment must lay a sufficient foundation to establish that the claim forms annexed thereto are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, which allows a document to be used as proof of the “act, transaction, occurrence or event” recorded in the document (CPLR 4518[a]; see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v. Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 A.D.3d 644, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc.3d 44, 829 N.Y.S.2d 404 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2006] ).

In the case at bar, plaintiff sought to lay the requisite foundation for the admission of its claim forms by submitting an affidavit executed by the owner of its third-party billing company, who alleged that plaintiff had provided its medical records to his billing company, that his company had used those records to create the claim forms at issue and that his company had then mailed those claim forms to defendant. The affiant further asserted that, pursuant to the business relationship existing between his company and his no-fault provider clients, those clients have a business duty to provide the medical records. He alleged, moreover, that the medical records his company relies on are “created near the time in which the events therein described occurred; they are created in the course of the providers' business; and it is the providers' business to create these documents as evidence of the services they have rendered.”

In Matter of Carothers, 79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2d Dept. 2010], where a third-party billing company merely printed no-fault claim forms, which had been created by the healthcare provider, and mailed them to the insurance company, the Appellate Division held that the testimony of an employee of the billing company failed to provide the requisite foundation to demonstrate that the claim forms should be considered under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, since the billing company did not create the records and there was no showing that its employee was familiar with the plaintiff's record-keeping procedures. In this case, unlike in Matter of Carothers ( id.), the billing company demonstrated that it had actually created the claim forms at issue. However, the analysis cannot end there because here the billing company used the information contained in the medical records furnished by plaintiff to create the claim forms. As noted by the Court of Appeals, in order for a document, such as the claim forms that are the subject of this lawsuit, to be considered for the truth of the assertions contained therein, “each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, must be acting within the course of regular business conduct or the declaration must meet the test of some other hearsay exception” Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 122, 421 N.Y.S.2d 863, 397 N.E.2d 374 [1979].

In the case at bar, plaintiff sought to demonstrate, through an affidavit of the owner of its billing company, that its medical records met the test of the business records exception to the hearsay rule in two different ways. First, the owner of its billing company claimed that plaintiff's medical records were made in a manner consistent with CPLR 4518 (a). However, his affidavit failed to demonstrate that he has personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures and that he is competent to testify about those practices and procedures see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of Carothers, 79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199; see also Reiss v. Roadhouse Rest., 70 A.D.3d 1021, 1024–1025, 897 N.Y.S.2d 450 [2010].

Plaintiff also sought to demonstrate, through the affidavit, that plaintiff's medical records were incorporated into its billing company's records and that its billing company relied upon the medical records in its regular course of business ( see Matter of Carothers, 79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199). In People v. DiSalvo, 284 A.D.2d 547, 727 N.Y.S.2d 146 [2001] and Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v. Leucadia, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 727, 498 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1986], the Appellate Division allowed documents into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, even though the witness laying the foundation for their admission was a recipient of the records and did not have personal knowledge of the maker's practices and procedures, because there was a showing of meaningful incorporation and...