This issue presents a question of fact for a jury. There is also a question whether plaintiff obtained authorization before the operation from the carrier to go ahead with the laparscopy. Plaintiff says yes, via telephone call. Defendant says consent needs to be in writing for this type of surgery. The insurer can waive this requirement.
Insurer says no.
This presents a question of fact for a jury. Note by doctor indicates it may have had his bill at time he was advised case was closed. In motions for summary judgment, the Court's responsibility is limited to issue identification, not issue resolution, except for those that may be resolved as a matter of law. This case is 2 years shy of a decade old. That plaintiff's counsel has not sought discovery in all these years is a sad commentary.