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
WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED AND FELL ON AN OUTSIDE STAIRWAY WHEN PATROLLING DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENCE AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; SANCTIONS FOR THE LOSS OF THE LIGHT FIXTURE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE BENT PIPE TO WHICH THE FIXTURE WAS ATTACHED WAS PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BURGLARY COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS ARMED WITH A “KNIFE” WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A “DEADLY WEAPON;” THE ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COUNT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED; THE SANDOVAL RULING WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE WEATHER AT THE TIME OF THE ICE SLIP AND FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE; IN ADDITION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE WAS THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE THE FALL AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTFF STUDENT BY TWO TEACHERS; THE FREQUENCY OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (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...