Motion for More Definite Statement in Rowe Plastic Surgery Of Long Island, P.C., Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Oxford Health Insurance Co., Inc., Oxford Health Insurance Inc., Oxford Health Plans (Nj), Inc., Oxford Health Plans (Ny), Inc., Oxford Health Plans L.L.C.| Trellis.Law

On March 31, 2022 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C., Rowe Plastic Surgery Of Long Island, P.C., and Oxford Health Insurance Co., Inc., Oxford Health Insurance Inc., Oxford Health Plans L.L.C., Oxford Health Plans, for Commercial - Contract in the District Court of Queens County.

Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
--------------------------------------------------------------
x
ROWE PLASTIC SURGERY OF LONG : Index No. 707039/2022
ISLAND, P.C. & NORMAN MAURICE :
ROWE, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C., : (Oral Argument Requested)
Plaintiffs, :
-against- : Motion Sequence No. 001
:
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE CO., INC; :
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC.; :
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC.; :
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NY), INC.; AND :
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS L.L.C., :
Defendants. :
--------------------------------------------------------------
x

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND FOR
COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

ROBINSON & COLE LLP
Chrysler East Building
666 Third Avenue, 20th floor
New York, NY 10017
Main: (212) 451-2900

Attorneys for Defendants
Of Counsel:
Michael H. Bernstein
Matthew P. Mazzola

1 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................................ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................................................3
PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT OF
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH IDENTIFY THEIR
PATIENT ............................................................................................................................................3
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF THE COSTS AND
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR § 130-
1.1 (A) BASED ON PLAINTIFFS’ REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE
REQUESTED IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ....................................................................8
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................... 12

2 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Oxford Health Ins. Co., Inc.,
No. 713748/2021, 2022 WL 2072892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2022) ...........................................2, 10

M & T Bank v. Ronnermann,
199 A.D.3d 996, 154 N.Y.S.3d 801 (2021) .............................................................................................. 7

Norman Maurice Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC et al v. Oxford Health Ins. Co., Inc. et al,
No. 714272/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2022)..................................................................................... 3

Rowe Plastic Surgery of Long Island, P.C. et al v. Oxford Health Insurance Co. Inc. et al,
No. 702017/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 21, 2022)..................................................................................... 2

Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc.,
167 Misc 2d 731 (1st Dept 1996) .............................................................................................................. 9

Statutes

Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act of 1996...................................................1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10

N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3013 ......................................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 7

N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3024 ............................................................................................. 1, 3, 9

Other Authorities

45 C.F.R. § 164.501............................................................................................................................................ 6

45 C.F.R. § 164.506 (a) ...................................................................................................................................... 6

22 NYCRR § 202.5(e)........................................................................................................................................ 5

22 NYCRR § 130 ........................................................................................................................................... 4, 9

22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 .......................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 7, 9

3 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants, Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., Oxford

Health Plans (NJ), Inc., Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc., and Oxford Health Plans L.L.C.

(“Defendants”), respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum of Law in further support of their

Motion for (1) a More Definite Statement pursuant to N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”)

3013 and 3024; and (2) for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees related to this motion pursuant to 22

New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”) §130-1.1 (a) and (c)

Plaintiffs, Rowe Plastic Surgery of Long Island, P.C. and Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D.,

M.H.A., L.L.C.’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) willful and continuing refusal to provide Defendants with

the full name of their Patient, (identified in the Complaint by only her initials, TD) whose medical care

forms the basis of this lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the “Patient”), has left Defendants with no

option other than to move this court for an order compelling them to do so. As explained in

Defendants’ moving papers, Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, which fails to provide this information, is

insufficient as a matter of law because it is not plead with sufficient particularity to provide notice to

the Court and Defendants of the claims being asserted. While the Complaint generally alleges claims

seeking payment for medical care allegedly rendered by Plaintiffs to a certain patient, who Plaintiffs

further allege is a member of a health benefit plan administered by Defendants, the Complaint fails to

provide Defendants with sufficient information to determine who that patient is and whether or not

she is actually a member of a plan that is administered and/or insured by the Defendants. Despite

Defendants’ multiple requests, Plaintiffs refuse to provide this information, even after receiving

information from Defendants explaining why doing so would not be a violation of the Health

Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Consequently, the Plaintiffs must be

ordered to provide a more definite statement (i.e.,
to provide the Patient’s full name) so that the

Defendants can have sufficient notice of the claims against them, and determine what defenses may

4 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

be applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Frankly, this is a bare minimum pleading requirement and Plaintiffs’

willful refusal to provide it can only be viewed as an intentional, frivolous and bad faith effort to

frustrate the Defendants’ ability to defend themselves in this case.

Plaintiffs’ refusal to identify the name of the Patient constitutes frivolous behavior under 22

NYCRR §130-1.1 (a) and (c) for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs have not provided any good faith

basis or legally sound reason to support their refusal to identify the Patient. Second, Plaintiffs’ refusal

to cooperate with Defendants’ reasonable request for the Patient’s name is a calculated effort to avoid

a potential motion to dismiss the Complaint in this case. In this regard, the Court should be aware

that Plaintiffs and their counsel have recently filed over sixty similar lawsuits against the Defendants, each

one pertaining to a different patient’s care and each one similarly alleges claims that Defendants owe

Plaintiffs or their affiliates additional benefit payments on behalf of the specific patient who claims

are in issue. Although Plaintiffs previously provided the names of these patients, without objection,

in literally dozens of these other lawsuits, Plaintiffs only began their refusal to cooperate after the

Defendant filed motions to dismiss in nearly every case (with allegations and causes of action identical

to those alleged in this case) filed by the Plaintiff, which motions were premised on information

Defendant obtained based on the identity of the Patient. Plaintiff has continued this refusal, without

any legal basis, following entry of Justice Joseph Esposito’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to

dismiss one of their other Complaints. See East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Oxford Health Ins. Co., Inc.,

No. 713748/2021, 2022 WL 2072892, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2022). Again, the complaint in that

case, like the Complaint filed in this case, and like the complaints filed by Plaintiffs and/or their

affiliates in all of the other similar cases previously mentioned, include allegations almost identical to

those alleged here.1 In an effort to avoid dismissal, Plaintiffs have refused to provide the name of the

1
Notably, two courts have granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss in similar cases. Rowe Plastic Surgery
of Long Island, P.C. et al v. Oxford Health Insurance Co. Inc. et al, No. 702017/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 21,
2

5 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

Patient in this case and every other similar case filed against Defendants by Plaintiffs. . Whether or

not Plaintiffs’ concerns are realistic, however, this isnot a legitimate basis for refusing to provide

necessary and required information in their pleadings, or in response to Defendants’ requests for

simple information that would allow it to determine if the Patient is in fact, a covered person under

one of their health plans, and ifso, locate the claims information in their systems pertaining to

Plaintiffs’ allegations, which would then allow Defendants to prepare a proper defense to the case.

Although Defendants have explained to Plaintiffs that they are entitled to this information as

a matter of law and that Plaintiffs’ Opposition arguments are actually contrary to applicable law,

Plaintiffs continue in their refusal to identify the Patient. Plaintiffs’ own opposition to this motion

demonstrates the lack of a good faith basis for refusing to provide the Patient’s full name. Indeed,

Plaintiffs’ baseless Opposition actually demonstrates the lack of merit to their position. In short,

Plaintiffs’ Opposition fails to offer any good faith reason to withhold the Patient’s name to

Defendants. Plaintiffs’ efforts to deprive Defendants of sufficient information to defend themselves

have been undertaken in bad faith, in an effort to frustrate Defendants’ ability to defend themselves

in this case and are a textbook example of frivolous behavior. Based on the foregoing and as discussed

in more detail below, Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and for an Award of Costs

and Attorneys’ Fees should be granted in its entirety.

ARGUMENT

PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT OF THE
ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH IDENTIFY THEIR PATIENT

CPLR 3013 provides: “Statements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court

and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended

to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.” CPLR 3024 (a) provides:

2022); Norman Maurice Rowe, MD, MHA, LLC et al v. Oxford Health Ins. Co., Inc. et al, No. 714272/2021
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2022).
3

6 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

“If a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response

he may move for a more definite statement.” Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is based on allegations that

Defendants purported underpaid a claim for benefits submitted by Plaintiffs for treatment rendered

to the Patient, TD. (See Compl.). In order to understand the allegations against them, Defendants need

to know the identity of the Patient, which is not clear from the Complaint. Without sufficient

identifying information regarding the Patient, including her name, Defendants cannot prepare a

meaningful response to the Complaint. As such, this Court should direct Plaintiffs to provide a more

definitive statement identifying the Patient.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition completely fails to provide any legitimate basis for their refusal to

provide this simple, yet vital information. Yet despite the lack of merit to each of Plaintiffs’ arguments

they seek to deflect their own bad faith behavior by asking that Defendants be sanctioned for having

the temerity to request that Plaintiffs provide the bare minimum notice pleadings that are required by

law. Each and every one of Plaintiffs’ arguments are meritless and underscore why Defendants’

motion for costs and attorneys’ fees under 22 NYCRR 130 is appropriate in this case. First, Plaintiffs

mischaracterize Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement as a “demand for greater

specificity.” (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 123, Affirmation in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for More

Definite Statement (“Pl. Opp.”), ¶13). But Defendants are not seeking any “greater specificity” or

further explanation of the allegations against them. Rather, Defendants are simply asking for the

Patient’s full name. Plaintiffs provide no legitimate legal basis for their refusal to provide this

information, beyond incorrect citation to HIPAA and an incoherent argument that it is unable to file

such information in the public record.2 While Defendants would agree to enter into a protective

stipulation to be so-ordered by the court to assuage such concerns, Plaintiffs would not agree to enter

2
In at least 10 other pending cases against these Defendants, Plaintiffs have filed the full names of
their patients on the public record. See Footnote No. 4, infra.
4

7 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

into such a protective order unless Defendants answered the Complaint and then requested the

Patient’s name in discovery. (See Pl. Opp. ¶21) But since Defendants cannot answer the Complaint

without the Patient’s full name, Plaintiffs’ position is nothing more than an impossible “Catch-22,”

which Defendants rejected as untenable.3

Second, rather than acknowledging their burden to plead their claim with sufficient

particularity pursuant to CPLR 3013, Plaintiffs (without any support in the law) argue that the

Defendants have the burden on such a motion to explain via witness affidavit, why the Patient’s name

is necessary to their defense of this case. (Pl. Opp., ¶¶16-20). Plaintiffs’ baseless argument is entirely

meritless – in fact, pursuant to CPLR 3013, Plaintiffs, not Defendants, bears the burden in “giv[ing]

the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences,

intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.” Defendants are

not required to guess about the Patient’s identity based on the few clues Plaintiffs deign to provide in

their Complaint, and the law does not require that they do so. As a matter of law, Plaintiffs bear the

burden to comply with CLPR 3013, so Defendants can conclusively identify the Patient whose care is

at issue in the Complaint and provide a meaningful response to the allegations against them.

Third, Plaintiffs have not provided any good faith basis or legal support for withholding the

Patient’s full name. There is good reason for this lapse – there is none. Indeed, all available law on

point requires Plaintiffs to provide this information to Defendants. For example, according to this

Court’s redaction rules, Plaintiffs are not permitted to withhold the name of an adult (i.e., non-minor)

by identifying her only by her initials. See 22 NYCRR § 202.5(e). To the extent Plaintiffs wished to

keep the Patient’s full name out of the public record, they were required to file a motion to seal or a

3
Plaintiffs unreasonably argue that the name of the Patient is irrelevant but does not even attempt to
explain how that could be possible. And Plaintiffs contradict this specious suggestion by identifying
the Patient by her initials in the Complaint, which in and of itself demonstrates that even Plaintiffs
consider this information relevant.
5

8 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs pursued neither of these options. Instead, they just flouted

the applicable rules and argued without basis that Defendants had no right to this information.

Fourth, and as mentioned earlier, the only legal basis Plaintiffs cite in their Opposition for

refusing to provide the Patient’s name are some purported restrictions on doing so in HIPAA. But

this argument is completely meritless. Indeed, as Defendants explained to Plaintiffs on several prior

occasions, the regulations governing HIPAA privacy compliance completely contradict Plaintiffs’

argument. These regulations contain numerous sections addressing when a covered entity (such as

Plaintiffs) can disclose protected health information (such as the Patient’s identity), including as part

of a lawsuit arising from an unpaid/underpaid claim. Specifically, 45 C.F.R. § 164.506 (a) states that

“[a] covered entity may use or disclose protected health information for treatment, payment, or health

care operations.” “Health care operations” includes “conducting or arranging for legal services.” 45

C.F.R. § 164.501. In the current matter, Plaintiffs allege that they are an out-of-network healthcare

provider that performed medical services on the Patient and are attempting via litigation to recover

payment from Defendants, insurance companies, for these services. Thus, Plaintiffs can disclose the

Patient’s identity to recover payment for services rendered as part of a legal proceeding pursuant to

45 C.F.R. §§ 164.501 & 164.506 (a).

Furthermore, the website for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”)

(i.e.,the federal agency that enforces HIPAA) includes the following question and answer on its

Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) page: “May a covered entity use or disclose protected health

information for litigation?” In its answer, HHS states: “the covered entity may use or disclose

protected health information for purposes of the litigation” and explains in detail why this is so. See

Health Information Privacy, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, available at

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/705/may-a-covered-entity-in-a-legal-proceeding

-use-protected-health-information/index.html#:~:text=Answer%3A,of%20its%20health%20care%

9 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

20operations. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ argument that providing Defendants with the Patient’s full name

would violate HIPAA is simply wrong. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have and had no valid legal justification

to withhold this information, which is a conclusion Plaintiffs could (and should) have reached

themselves if only they had bothered to actually read the applicable HIPAA regulations that they

purport to rely upon.

Indeed, to satisfy their obligations under CPLR 3013, Plaintiffs should have included the

Patient’s full name in the Complaint so that Defendants could fully understand the allegations against

them, or if the Patient’s identify was really Plaintiffs’ concern, they could have sent Defendants the

Patient’s name via secure delivery. Despite Defendants’ offer to do these things to assuage Plaintiffs’

concerns, Plaintiffs willfully and continuously refused to provide this information, necessitating this

motion. (See Email exchange between the parties attached hereto as Exhibit A, p. 1).

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Plaintiffs had and have no reasonable justification to

withhold the Patient’s full name and their conduct constitutes frivolous behavior pursuant to 22

NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a) and (c). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s feigned ignorance regarding the

requirements of HIPAA is disingenuous at best (ignorance of the law is not a valid defense) and

demonstrates that withholding the name of the Patient has been and continues to be done in bad faith.

See M & T Bank v. Ronnermann, 199 A.D.3d 996, 154 N.Y.S.3d 801, 802 (2021). All of the foregoing

was summarized by Defendants in a June 30, 2022 email response to Plaintiffs’ improper attempt to

invoke HIPAA as a basis for withholding the requested information (i.e., before Plaintiffs filed their

opposition in this case). In that email, Defendants advised Plaintiffs as follows:

No one is asking you to provide the patient’s name on the public record in violation
of HIPAA. We are asking that you to disclose it to us privately in a secure email or
whatever secure manner you deem appropriate. This would not be a violation of
HIPPA (I suggest you review the applicable HIPAA requirements before generally
stating that you are not permitted to produce this information as a party to this
litigation). We are entitled to this information because your Patient’s claim is the
subject of the lawsuit. To the extent you refuse to produce it,your complaint is in
violation of CPLR 3013 because you are not pleading your claim with particularity.
7

10 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

Furthermore, we will not enter into a “discovery stipulation” because we are not asking
for discovery, we are asking for you to provide information identifying the patient
whose claim is the basis for your lawsuit.

(Exhibit A, p. 1). To date, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not responded to this email nor has he provided any

reasonable basis for refusing to identify the Patient.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ argument that “the basis of this lawsuit is the transaction between Plaintiffs

and Defendant” (Pl. Opp., ¶10) and that the identity of the Patient is irrelevant, is belied by the

Complaint allegations themselves. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are out-of-network healthcare

providers that performed medical services on their Patient, “TD.” (Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 14, 17,

22-23, 25, 29, 34, 36, 40, 42-45, and 48). Plaintiffs’ Complaint also alleges that “‘TD’ was a consumer

of a health insurance product sold by [Defendants].” (Compl., ¶ 14). Plaintiffs also allege that they

then submitted billsto Defendants for the treatment provided to the Patient, but that Defendants

allegedly underpaid Plaintiffs (Compl., ¶¶ 36-38) and attach to the Complaint the actual claim forms

that they submitted to Defendants seeking payment of benefits under TD’s health insurance plan

(Compl., pp. 20-21). As such, the lawsuit arises out of Plaintiffs, out-of-network providers, providing

medical services to TD and the alleged underpayment by Defendants for Plaintiffs’ medical services

rendered to the Patient. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs’ claim that “the personal information of

a non-party patient is irrelevant to the claim identified in the Complaint,” is nonsensical and only

highlights the need for the Patient to be identified. (Pl. Opp., ¶15).

DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF THE COSTS AND FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (A) BASED
ON PLAINTIFFS’ REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a), “[t]he court, in its discretion, may award to any party or

attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in

the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney's fees,

11 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

resulting from frivolous conduct as defined in this Part.” 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (c) defines frivolous

conduct as conduct that is: “. . . completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a

reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law . . . [or] it is undertaken

primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another.”

As discussed in Point I of Defendants’ principal motion papers and above in Point I, supra., Plaintiffs,

without any basis in the law, has refused to provide Defendants with the identity of the Patient. This

information is being withheld in bad faith solely in an attempt to delay this action by avoiding a motion

to dismiss.

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ Motion should be denied as frivolous

because “this latest baseless motion based on CPLR 3024 is just another way for Counsel to ‘pad his

billables’ and frustrate prompt resolution of this claim.” (Pl. Opp., ¶29). Plaintiffs’ attempt to deflect

the Court’s attention from their own palpable wrongdoing is,itself, yet another instance of their

frivolous conduct. See Southern Blvd. Sound v Felix Storch, Inc., 167 Misc 2d 731, 732 (1st Dept 1996)

(holding that “in appropriate circumstances a baseless request for sanctions itself may

constitute frivolous conduct within the meaning of rule 130.”). Manifestly, Defendants’ conduct here

has been at all times, measured, appropriate and reasonable. In response, Plaintiffs have been willfully

and contumaciously obstreperous. Under the circumstances presented, Defendants have been left

with no alternative but to file the instant motion. Plaintiffs’ response to them is all the more egregious

because they accuse Defendants of behavior more descriptive of their own, while they also flout this

Court’s rules for redaction, ignore simple pleading rules, and misstate the governing HIPAA

regulations. Finally, it is worth noting that Plaintiffs’ Opposition failsto provide any response to

Defendants’ argument that before Defendants started filing their motions to dismiss in nearly all of

the other lawsuits brought against them by the Plaintiff predating the instant lawsuit, which motions

were premised on information obtained based on the identity of the Patient , Plaintiffs never withheld

12 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

the patient names in other similar cases between the parties.4 Plaintiff has also failed to deny that its

continued refusal, without any legal basis, to provide this information is due to its unhappiness with

Justice Esposito’s order of dismissal in East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C., supra.5 In fact, Plaintiffs’ baseless

argument that providing Defendants with the Patient’s name might “possibly” violate HIPAA is

completely undermined by the fact that Plaintiffs previously identified by full-name (not the initials)

all of the patients whose claims formed the basis of their previous lawsuits against Defendants, and

filed that information in the public record.6 Plaintiffs’ failure to reconcile their prior filings with their

inadequate filing in this case may be the best proof of the Plaintiffs’ bad faith refusal to provide

Defendants with information that they need to defend themselves in this lawsuit.7

Because Plaintiffs have no legitimate basis to withhold the identity of the Patient, the Court

should award Defendants the costs and fees that they incurred in having to file this motion for a more

definite statement.

4
The Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement lists all the cases where the Defendants
filed motions to dismiss. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 11, p. 7, footnote 1).
5
See Footnote No. 1.
6
See Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et.al. v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., et.al.,
Index No. 713760/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC v. Oxford Health Insurance Company,
Inc., et. al., Index No. 713556/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al. v. Oxford Health
Insurance Company, Inc., et. al., Index No. 713759/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al.
v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., et.al., Index No. 714270/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D.,
M.H.A., LLC, et. al.v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., et.al.,Index No. 714272/21; Norman
Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al.v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc.,et.al., 715809/21;
Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al. v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., et. al., Index
No. 716161/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al. v. Oxford Health Insurance Company,
Inc., et. al., Index No. 716139/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al. v. Oxford Health
Insurance Company, Inc., et. al., Index No. 715806/21; Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., LLC, et. al.
v. Oxford Health Insurance Company, Inc., et. al., Index No. 715807/21.
7
To the extent Plaintiffs’ counsel does not have the permission of the patients to include their name
on the public record and believe doing so is a violation of HIPAA, Plaintiffs’ counsel is obligated to
file a motion to seal that information, which it has not done in any of the cases referenced in Footnote
number 4.
10

13 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

CONCLUSION

For any and all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion for a

More Definite Statement, Defendants’ Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, and for such other,

further and different relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York
August 14, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,

Michael H. Bernstein
Matthew P. Mazzola
Robinson & Cole LLP
Chrysler East Building
666 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Main (212) 451-2900
Facsimile (212) 451-2999

14 of 15
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2022 06:51 PM INDEX NO. 707039/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2022

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
22 NYCRR 202.8-b

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies pursuant to Rule 202.8-b of the NYS Uniform Civil

Rules that the total number of words in the within Memorandum of Law, inclusive of point headings

and footnotes and exclusive of the caption and signature block is 3,723 words.

Dated: New York, New York
August 14, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

Matthew P. Mazzola
Robinson & Cole LLP
Chrysler East Building
666 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Main (212) 451-2900
Facsimile (212) 451-2999

15 of 15

Case Info

Judge

Carmen R Velasquez Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 14, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 31, 2022

County

Parties

BAGLIO, MICHAEL PETER Attorney for the Plaintiff
BERNSTEIN, MICHAEL H. Attorney for the Defendant
LEWIN, LEV J. Attorney for the Plaintiff
MAZZOLA, MATTHEW PAUL Attorney for the Defendant
NORMAN MAURICE ROWE, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. Plaintiff
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE CO., INC. Defendant
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE INC. Defendant
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS L.L.C. Defendant
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC. Defendant
OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NY), INC. Defendant
ROWE PLASTIC SURGERY OF LONG ISLAND, P.C. Plaintiff
MICHAEL NATHAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRENDAN KEARNS Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Rowe Plastic Surgery Of Long Island, P.C., Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. v. Oxford Health Insurance Co., Inc., Oxford Health Insurance Inc., Oxford Health Plans (Nj), Inc., Oxford Health Plans (Ny), Inc., Oxford Health Plans L.L.C.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties