Gentle Acupuncture, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50706(U), Slip Copy, 55 Misc.3d 147(A)
In this action by a provider to recover no fault benefits, Plaintiff appeals from a District Court Order wherein its complaint was dismissed.
Plaintiff’s claims were timely denied based on fee schedule and medical necessity based upon an IME.
The Court stated as follows:
[W]e find that defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as it failed to provide an expert’s affidavit to explain its interpretation of the fee schedule at issue (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 133[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51335[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). With respect to the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for dates of service July 12, 2013 through September 30, 2013 on the ground that the services were not medically necessary, while defendant, in support of its motion, submitted Dr. LoCascio’s sworn report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for further treatment, plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, submitted an affirmation by Dr. Vatelman, the licensed acupuncturist who had treated the assignor, which meaningfully referred to and sufficiently rebutted the conclusions set forth in Dr. LoCascio’s report. We note that, contrary to defendant’s argument, the omission of the jurat in Dr. Vatelman’s affirmation is not fatal (People ex rel. 5th Ave. & 37th St. Corp. v Miller, 261 App Div 550, 552 [1941], affd 286 NY 628 [1941]; see also People v Gouiran, 192 AD2d 620 [1993]), particularly in the absence of a showing of substantial prejudice to defendant (see CPLR 2001). We further note that while Dr. Vatelman, as an acupuncturist, was ineligible to submit an affirmation under CPLR 2106 (a), defendant waived any objection on this basis, as it did not raise this issue either in the District Court or on appeal (see Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 [2002]).