On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-8288-08.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Messano and St. John.
Defendant/third-party plaintiff Clifford Gildawie appeals from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of a prior order dated June 2, 2010, as amended on June 8, 2010, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff Essex Pain Management Group, P.C. (EPMG), and third-party defendants Craig Weinstein, Ira Siegel, Bonnie Blackman, Richard Lipsky, Roman Kosiborod, Allan Weissman, and Essex Surgery Center, L.L.C. (the Center). We affirm.
EPMG is a professional corporation, comprised of three doctors, third-party defendants, Drs. Lipsky, Weissman, and Kosiborod. The Center is a medical facility and does not itself provide medical services. Third-party defendants Drs. Siegel and Blackman are solo practitioners, who practice anesthesiology at the Center.
EPMG treated Gildawie with interventional pain procedures at the Center. EPMG claims that it never received payments for the medical services that it provided to Gildawie.
In discovery, Gildawie was provided with Explanations of Benefits indicating that Gildawie's wife, Judith (the subscriber for his insurance policy) received at least $15,005 of insurance payments for services that EPMG provided to Gildawie. Furthermore, copies of checks indicated that Judith subsequently wrote checks to Gildawie in the amount of at least $12,000. Gildawie offered no proof that either the insurance payments or the checks he received from his wife had been endorsed over to EPMG.
At the hearing on May 14, 2010, Judge Pincus determined that EPMG established a prima facie case that it provided medical services to Gildawie on the dates listed on the invoice; that Gildawie incurred a debt of $17,876.80 due and owing to EPMG; and that the debt remained outstanding. She entered a judgment for EPMG and the third-party defendants on June 2, 2010, as amended by an order on June 8, 2010. Gildawie filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. This appeal followed.
Defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT WARRANTING A TRIAL.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT UNDER THE ...