You are here: / / No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based”...
,

No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based” Surgery

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined that a no-fault insurer is not required to pay a “facility fee” for “office-based” surgery:

The No-Fault Law (Insurance Law art 51) and its implementing regulations specifically provide that the operator of a hospital or “ambulatory surgery center,” both of which are established under, and subject to, the comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework of Public Health Law article 28, may properly bill a no-fault carrier for facility fees (see e.g. 10 NYCRR 86-4.40). There is, however, no provision for recovery of a facility fee for the performance of an “office-based surgery” performed in a practice and setting accredited under Public Health Law § 230-d (Public Health Law § 230-d[1][b]). Public Health Law § 230-d, which is not contained in Public Health Law article 28, imposes a substantially more modest level of oversight and regulation than article 28. We hold that, absent express statutory or regulatory authorization, a no-fault insurer is not required to pay a facility fee for office-based surgery performed in a practice and setting accredited under Public Health Law § 230-d. * * *

The facility fee is a charge for the cost of providing “technicians, medical assistant[s] . . . [and] equipment,” such as X-ray and ultrasound equipment, for office-based surgery. Government Empls Ins Co v Avanguard Med Group PLLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01413, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Settlement Without Insurer’s Consent.
Criteria for Motion to Renew Based on New Facts Not Met
HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).
ACTION SEEKING REFORMATION OF NOTE AND MORTGAGE PROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER DOCTRINE OF LACHES.
Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection
DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT LOST CONTROL AT 180 MPH, STRUCK A GUARD RAIL, WAS EJECTED AND DIED FROM HIS INJURIES; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT, RAISED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S USE OF THE CAR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another...