The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN R. BARTELS
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to New York State's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Insurance Law § 5101, et seq. (McKinney's 1985 & Supp. 1995), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively the "No-Fault Law"). Plaintiff Mario Introna, D.C. ("Dr. Introna"), a licensed chiropractor, seeks to recover from defendant Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") the cost of certain medical services he provided to patients covered by no-fault insurance policies issued by defendant. Plaintiffs also seek costs, interest, and attorney's fees under Insurance Law § 5106(a).
I. Background and Contentions of Parties
Dr. Introna, as subrogee, submitted claims for reimbursement under a number of New York State no-fault insurance policies issued by Allstate. Allstate paid a portion of the claims but denied coverage on the remainder, asserting that Dr. Introna had charged fees in excess of those permitted under the No-Fault Law.
Plaintiffs instituted the present action in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Richmond, seeking to recover the outstanding balance. Defendant removed the action to this Court on June 28, 1993. Both parties then cross-moved for summary judgment. In their motion papers, plaintiffs did not dispute that Dr. Introna charged his no-fault patients fees in excess of the office visit fees permitted under the No-Fault Law, but argued that he was entitled to collect additional compensation for certain services performed during those visits. Dr. Introna also argued that he was justified in basing his fees on rates prevalent in his geographic area. Allstate disputed plaintiffs' right to the additional charges, and argued that even if Dr. Introna were entitled to additional compensation, the No-Fault Law expressly requires him to base his fees on those charged for comparable medical procedures.
The Court held a bench trial of this matter on May 23 and 24, 1994. At trial, plaintiffs reiterated what they alleged to be a complete absence of medical procedures with which to compare those performed by Dr. Introna and the resultant need to base his additional fees on the prevailing rate. Plaintiffs then presented expert testimony, most of which was provided by Dr. Introna himself, concerning the amount of fees to which he is entitled. Defendant contended that the comparable procedure method was the only means statutorily available to plaintiffs, and presented a comprehensive methodology by which to determine procedures comparable to those performed by Dr. Introna.
According to plaintiffs, there remain five procedures for which the appropriate fee still must be determined. These include: Computerized Cervical Range of Motion tests; Autoscreen 3-D (or Metrecom) studies; Surface Electromyography ("Surface EMG"); Neurometer Screen Testing; and Plethysmography. Defendant generally agrees with plaintiffs' assessment, but argues that because Computerized Cervical Range of Motion tests fall within the ambit of the Court's prior ruling, the fees for this procedure are subsumed in already reimbursed office visit fees. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court reaches the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Plaintiff Dr. Introna, a licensed chiropractor authorized to practice within the State of New York, is a New York State resident who maintains his principal place of business in Staten Island, New York.
2. Plaintiff Chiro Med Health Services is an unincorporated business entity wholly owned by Dr. Introna which acts as Dr. Introna's billing service and maintains its principal place of business in Staten Island, New York.
3. Defendant Allstate is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois which maintains its principal place of business in Illinois.
4. The amount in controversy exceeds $ 50,000.
5. Dr. Introna submitted to Allstate claims totalling over $ 82,000 seeking reimbursement for chiropractic services provided to approximately 29 different patients, all of whom were involved in automobile accidents and whose injuries were ...