Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action - Hello friend Smile Your Brain, In the article you read this time with title Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action, we have prepared this article well for you to read and take the information in it. hopefully the contents of the post Article Collateral Estoppel, Article Defense Preclusion, Article Mallela, Article No-Fault, which we write you can understand. okay, happy reading.

Title : Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action
link : Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action

Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action

NO-FAULT – COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – MALLELA DEFENSE  
Downtown Acupuncture PC v. State Wide Ins. Co.
(NYC Civ. Ct., Kings Co., decided 10/22/2015)

In 2010, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company commenced a declaratory judgment action in Nassau County Supreme Court against Downtown Acupuncture PC and other PCs purportedly owned not by licensed professionals but by Valentina Anikeyeva, In 2013, Supreme Court granted State Farm's motion to strike the defendant PCs' answer in that action based on the defendants' non-compliance with a so-ordered discovery stipulation and, based on the defendants' default in pleading, further granted judgment to State Farm, finding that

the overwhelming evidence indicates that the P.C. defendants were not owned and controlled by a licensed acupuncturist, therefore rendering them ineligible to receive reimbursement, and to collect payment on outstanding claims. Additionally, a billing provider which utilizes an independent contractor to provide the services in question, is not a "provider" of the services in question and is not entitled to recover direct payment of assigned no-fault benefits from the defendant insurer. 

In July 2015 the Second Department affirmed that decision, finding that the defendant PCs had failed to demonstrate reasonable excuse for their default in complying with the terms of the conditional order and a meritorious defense to the complaint. 

In this 2004-commenced action, defendant State Wide Insurance Company moved on the eve of trial in late 2014 to dismiss this action based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that the Nassau County Supreme Court order and judgment in the State Farm DJ action precluded plaintiff from arguing that it was entitled to receive no-fault benefits.  

Noting that a New York no-fault insurer's Mallela defense is not subject to preclusion "and hence is non-waivable", Kings County Civil Court Judge Katherine Levine nevertheless denied State Wide's dismissal motion, holding:  

This Court cannot even entertain defendant's request for collateral estoppel until it seeks to amend its answer to raise Mallela as a defense and hence create an apparent identity of issues between the DJ action and the instant matter. In the same motion to amend it can also assert collateral estoppel. After defendant formally moves to amend, plaintiff will be afforded the opportunity to argue how it would be prejudiced by such a motion. The Court is quite dubious that plaintiff will be able to show any prejudice or surprise since the Appellate Term noted as early as 2012 that "(t)here exists a rich history of litigation, involving a multitude of cases before the Appellate Term, in which health care facilities allegedly owned by Ms. Anikeyeva have been asked to supply Mallela discovery." Lexington Acupuncture PC, supra, 35 Misc 3d at 49 (Golia, J. concurring). However, sometimes form over substance does matter and plaintiff must be afforded the opportunity to argue prejudice or disclaim the apparent identity of issues.

Justice delayed is justice denied?  Probably not in this case, given Judge Levine's expressed dubiousness. I see a motion to amend and dismiss coming.  

Such is the article Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action

That's an article Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action this time, hopefully can benefit for you all. okay, see you in other article posting.

You are now reading the article Form Over Substance Does Matter -- Having Not Asserted Collateral Estoppel as an Affirmative Defense, No-Fault Insurer Is Denied Dismissal of Provider's Recovery Action with the link address https://smileyourbrain.blogspot.com/2015/11/form-over-substance-does-matter-having.html

Tweet