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
ALLEGED ZONING VIOLATION DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY WARRANT REMOVAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS; TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
Under the Facts, Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Father’s Parental Rights—No Showing that Termination Would Increase Likelihood of Adoption
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.
IN THIS VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF ENTERED AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHICH INDICATED THE AWARD WOULD BE BETWEEN $0 AND $50,000, BUT THE POLICY LIMITS WERE $100,000/300,000; THE UNILATERAL MISTAKE BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY RE: THE POLICY LIMITS WAS NOT INDUCED BY DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S CARRIER, THEREFORE RESCISSION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FILING A 90 DAY NOTICE AND THEN DISCONTINUING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2014 DID NOT REVOKE THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE REPRESENTED BY THE FILING OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN 2008, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...