Case Name: Claudia P. Egan et al., Respondents, v. David W. Dawson, Defendant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-09-30
Citations: 207 A.D.2d 1016
Docket Number: 
Parties: Claudia P. Egan et al., Respondents, v David W. Dawson, Defendant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 207
Pages: 1016–1016

Head Matter:
Claudia P. Egan et al., Respondents, v David W. Dawson, Defendant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, Appellant.
[616 NYS2d 826]

Opinion:
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The rolling treatments received by Claudia P, Egan (plaintiff) are not "other professional health services" under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (iv) because rolling is not a service licensed by the State of New York (see, 11 NYCRR 65.15 [o] [1] [vi]). Nevertheless, there is a question of fact whether the rolling treatments received by plaintiff were a necessary treatment to restore her health so that they may qualify as "rehabilitation" under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) (ii) (see, Hernandez v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 146 Misc 2d 938, 941). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—No-Fault Benefits.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.