Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
EXHIBIT B
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
New York Insurance Case Management Center
Maureen Kurdziel
Vice President
32 Old Slip, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 917 438 1500, Facsimile: 917 438 1600
03/18/2024
Field Law Group, P.C.
Addressee(s):
17 State Street
40th Floor
New York, NY 10004
By: EMAIL
American Transit Insurance Company
One Metro Tech Center, 7th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
By: EMAIL
CitiMed Complete Medical Care PC a/a/o Mateo Canela
Re:
v.
American Transit Insurance Company
AAA Case No.: 99-22-1273-0550
Legacy Case No.:
Date of Accident: 07/31/2021
Applicant File No.: FL22-58044
Insurance Claim No.: 1101052-01
NAIC No.: 16616
Dear Parties,
By direction of the Master Arbitrator, we herewith transmit to you the duly executed master award in this matter.
We thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. We welcome and invite your feedback on your experience with
us. Please share your comments at our service feedback page at https://nysinsurance.adr.org/ under Customer Support.
Sincerely,
American Arbitration Association
Master Appeal Team
Tel: (917) 438-1671
masterappealteam@adr.org
CC:
Anthony Kobets Arbitrator
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
American Arbitration Association
NO-FAULT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
In the Matter of the Arbitration between
CITIMED COMPLETE MEDICAL CARE PC A/A/O MATEO CANELA Applicant
-and-
Respondent
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY
AAA ASSESSMENT NO.: 99-22-1273-0550 INSURER’S FILE NUMBER: 1101052-01
AAA CASE NUMBER:
MASTER ARBITRATION AWARD
I, Robyn D. Weisman, the undersigned MASTER ARBITRATOR, appointed by the Superinten-
dent of Insurance and designated by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to regulations prom-
ulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance at 11 NYCRR 65-4.10, having been duly sworn, and having
heard the proofs and allegations of the parties on March 15, 2024 , make the fol-
lowing AWARD.
Part I. Summary of Issues in Dispute
Whether lower arbitrator acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner or in violation of a law
in ruling that Applicant was entitled to reimbursement holding insufficient proof of a lack
medical necessity and causation
1
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
Part II. Findings, Conclusions, and Basis Therefor
The underlying issue involved a claim for reimbursement for no-fault benefits arising out of
a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 31, 2021. The Applicant sought an amount
equal to $7146.79 for physicians’ fees relating to right shoulder surgery. Respondent de-
nied the claim based upon a peer review. Appellant argues the surgery was not medically
necessary and the injury not related to the accident.
Appellant argues there was no meaningful rebuttal and the condition was degenerative and
not related to the accident.
Once a proper claim is made, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that the services in is-
sue are not medically necessary and likewise, not causally related.
The Arbitrator rendered an extremely detailed opinion with respect to the claims of the Ap-
pellant/Respondent discussing the peer review and rebuttals as well as MRIs and pre-
existing condition claims, and medical records. The arbitrator also discussed the rebuttal.
The arbitrator within the detailed opinion found the following:
Based upon a review of the evidence herein and the arguments of counsel, I find that
Respondent has not met its burden in this case. Although I denied reimbursement in
a linked matter dealing with the same date of service, AAA case no. 172212643220,
I find that the evidence herein demonstrated that Dr. Loguidice's peer review did not
provide a sufficient factual basis nor adequately explain the significance of the pa-
tient's ongoing symptomology and objective positive test results contained in the
medical records. Importantly, the medical records document the continued com-
plaints of persistent right shoulder pain; along with decreased ranges of motion, posi-
tive diagnostic testing and positive orthopedic testing including Impingement sign,
Neer test, Hawkins test, Belly Press test, Jobe's test, Drop Arm test, O'Brien test and
Speed test.
I find that Dr. Loguidice's peer report was unpersuasive and overly conclusory with-
out a sufficient factual basis or medical rationale to support his conclusion that the
services were not medically necessary. Dr. Loguidice apparently did not review or
consider the initial evaluation dated 9/17/21, which documented the onset of the Pa-
tient's complaints, positive orthopedic tests and their causal relationship to the
7/31/21 accident. A peer review which concludes there was no medical necessity due
to the lack of sufficient information upon which the reviewer could make such a de-
termination does not set forth a factual basis and medical rationale sufficient to es-
tablish the absence of medical necessity. Park Neurological Services P.C. v. GEICO
Ins., 4 Misc.3d 95, 782 N.Y.S.2d 506 (App. Term 9th & 10th Dists. 2004).
The arbitrator set forth a clear rationale for his decision. The arbitrator laid out in detail why
the peer review was deficient.
With respect to the differing medical opinions, I must defer to the Arbitrator as the arbitrator
was in his purview to weigh such evidence as he deemed appropriate.
2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
Courts have held with regard to causation of injuries that it is presumed since "it would not
be reasonable to insist that (an applicant) must prove as a threshold matter that (a) patient's
condition was 'caused' by the automobile accident." Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach,
263 A.D.2d 11, 20 (2d Dept. 1999). Thus, the initial burden is on the insurer to come for-
ward with proof establishing by "fact or founded belief" its defense that the claimed injuries
have no nexus to the accident, Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach, 263 A.D.2d 11, 19 (2d
Dept. 1999) (quoting Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 N.Y.2d 195, 199),
that is, that the conditions were not caused or exacerbated by the accident, see Mount Sinai,
263 A.D.2d 11, 18 - 19; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op
00351 (App Div 2d Dept., Jan. 20, 2009).
Based upon all of the above the arbitrator found the Appellant/Respondent’s arguments and
proof insufficient.
Now with respect to the Master Arbitrator’s role, the review of this award is limited to the
standards set forth in CPLR Article 75 and which was defined by the Court of Appeals in
Matter of Petrofsky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 54 NY2d 207 as follows: in cases of
compulsory arbitration, this Court has held that article 75 of the CPLR “includes review . . .
of whether the award is supported by evidence or 2) other basis in reason.” Mount St.
Mary’s v. Catherwood, 26 NY 2d 493. This standard has been interpreted to import into ar-
ticle 75 review of compulsory arbitrations the arbitrary and capricious standard of Article 78
review. Caso v. Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; Siegel, New York Practice, Sec. 603, pp. 865-
866. In addition, Article 75 review questions whether the decision was rational or had plau-
sible basis. Id. The Court in Petrofsky also held that a Master's powers of review do not en-
compass a de novo review of the matter presented to the lower arbitrator and do not author-
ize the Master Arbitrator to determine the weight or credibility of the evidence. A Master
Arbitrator may not substitute his judgment for that of the arbitrator. See, Matter of Aleman,
62 N.Y.2d 1017 (1984).
The grounds for review also include that the decision was incorrect as a matter of law. 11
NYCRR 65-4.10(a)(4).
Based on the foregoing, I find the award below was cogently thought out and clearly articu-
lated and certainly not irrational, arbitrary and capricious or incorrect as a matter of law.
Therefore, I see no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s decision. The award is therefore af-
firmed in its entirety.
Accordingly,
1. the request for review is hereby denied pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (c) (4)
2. the award reviewed is affirmed in its entirety
3. the award or part thereof in favor of applicant
hereby reviewed is vacated and
respondent
remanded for a new hearing before the lower arbitrator
3
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
before a new arbitrator
4. the award in favor of the applicant
hereby reviewed is vacated in its entirety
respondent
—or—
5. the award reviewed is modified to read as follows:
A. The respondent shall pay the applicant no-fault benefits in the sum of
Dollars ($ ), as follows:
Work/Wage Loss $
Health Service Benefits $
Other Reasonable and Necessary Expenses $
Death Benefit $
Total $
B1. Since the claim(s) in question arose from an accident that occurred prior to April 5,
2002, the insurer shall compute and pay the applicant the amount of interest computed from
at the rate of 2% per month, compounded, and
ending with the date of payment of the award, subject to the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-
3.9(c) (stay of interest).
B2. Since the claim(s) in question arose from an accident that occurred on or after April 5,
2002, the insurer shall compute and pay the applicant the amount of interest computed from
AS PER DECISION at the rate of 2% per month and ending with the
date of payment of the award, subject to the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(c) (stay of in-
terest).
C1. The respondent shall also pay the applicant one hundred thirty dollars
($130 ) for attorney’s fees computed in accordance with 11 NYCRR
65-4.6(d). The computation is shown below (attach additional sheets if necessary).
4
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
Although I do not see an affidavit, based upon the brief of Appellee, I am awarding two
hours.
-or-
C2. The respondent shall also pay the applicant an attorney’s fee in accordance with 11
NYCRR 65-4.6(e). However, for all arbitration requests filed on or after April 5,
2002, if the benefits and interest awarded thereon is equal to or less than the re-
spondent’s written offer during the conciliation process, then the attorney’s fee shall
be based upon the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(b).
C3. Since the charges by the applicant for benefits are for billings on or after April 5,
2002, and exceed the limitations contained in the schedules established pursuant to
section 5108 of the Insurance Law, no attorney’s fee shall be payable by the insurer.
See 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(i).
D. The respondent shall also pay the applicant forty dollars ($40) to reimburse the ap-
plicant for the fee paid to the Designated Organization for the arbitration below, un-
less the fee was previously returned pursuant to an earlier award
PART III. (Complete if applicable.) The applicant in the arbitration reviewed, having
prevailed in this review,
A. the respondent shall pay the applicant
------------------- dollars ($---------------- for attorney’s fees computed in accordance
with 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j). The computation is shown below (attach additional
sheets if necessary)
B. If the applicant requested review, the respondent shall also pay the applicant
SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($75) to reimburse the applicant for the Master Ar-
bitration filing fee.
This award determines all of the no-fault policy issues submitted to this master arbitrator pursuant to
11 NYCRR 65- 4.10
State of New York
County of New York . ss:
5
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024
I, Robyn D. Weisman , do hereby affirm upon my oath as master arbitrator that I am the individual
described in and who executed this instrument, which is my award.
March 15, 2024
Date Master Arbitrator’s Signature
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This award is payable within 21 calendar days of the date of mailing. A copy of this award has
been sent to the Superintendent of Insurance.
This master arbitration award is final and binding except for CPLR Article 75 review or where the
award, exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees, exceeds $5,000, in which case there may be court
review de novo (11 NYCRR 65- 4.10(h)). A denial of review pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65- 4.10 (c) (4)
(Part II (1) above) shall not form the basis of an action de novo within the meaning of section
5106(c) of the Insurance Law. A party who intends to commence an Article 75 proceeding or an
action to adjudicate a dispute de novo shall follow the applicable procedures as set forth in CPLR
Article 75. If the party initiating such action is an insurer, payment of all amounts set forth in the
master arbitration award which will not be subject of judicial action or review shall be made prior
of the commencement of such action.
Date of mailing: March 18, 2024
6
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 EXHIBIT B FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 New York Insurance Case Management Center Maureen Kurdziel Vice President 32 Old Slip, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 917 438 1500, Facsimile: 917 438 1600 03/18/2024 Field Law Group, P.C. Addressee(s): 17 State Street 40th Floor New York, NY 10004 By: EMAIL American Transit Insurance Company One Metro Tech Center, 7th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 By: EMAIL CitiMed Complete Medical Care PC a/a/o Mateo Canela Re: v. American Transit Insurance Company AAA Case No.: 99-22-1273-0550 Legacy Case No.: Date of Accident: 07/31/2021 Applicant File No.: FL22-58044 Insurance Claim No.: 1101052-01 NAIC No.: 16616 Dear Parties, By direction of the Master Arbitrator, we herewith transmit to you the duly executed master award in this matter. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. We welcome and invite your feedback on your experience with us. Please share your comments at our service feedback page at https://nysinsurance.adr.org/ under Customer Support. Sincerely, American Arbitration Association Master Appeal Team Tel: (917) 438-1671 masterappealteam@adr.org CC: Anthony Kobets Arbitrator FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 American Arbitration Association NO-FAULT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL In the Matter of the Arbitration between CITIMED COMPLETE MEDICAL CARE PC A/A/O MATEO CANELA Applicant -and- Respondent AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY AAA ASSESSMENT NO.: 99-22-1273-0550 INSURER’S FILE NUMBER: 1101052-01 AAA CASE NUMBER: MASTER ARBITRATION AWARD I, Robyn D. Weisman, the undersigned MASTER ARBITRATOR, appointed by the Superinten- dent of Insurance and designated by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to regulations prom- ulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance at 11 NYCRR 65-4.10, having been duly sworn, and having heard the proofs and allegations of the parties on March 15, 2024 , make the fol- lowing AWARD. Part I. Summary of Issues in Dispute Whether lower arbitrator acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner or in violation of a law in ruling that Applicant was entitled to reimbursement holding insufficient proof of a lack medical necessity and causation 1 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 Part II. Findings, Conclusions, and Basis Therefor The underlying issue involved a claim for reimbursement for no-fault benefits arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 31, 2021. The Applicant sought an amount equal to $7146.79 for physicians’ fees relating to right shoulder surgery. Respondent de- nied the claim based upon a peer review. Appellant argues the surgery was not medically necessary and the injury not related to the accident. Appellant argues there was no meaningful rebuttal and the condition was degenerative and not related to the accident. Once a proper claim is made, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that the services in is- sue are not medically necessary and likewise, not causally related. The Arbitrator rendered an extremely detailed opinion with respect to the claims of the Ap- pellant/Respondent discussing the peer review and rebuttals as well as MRIs and pre- existing condition claims, and medical records. The arbitrator also discussed the rebuttal. The arbitrator within the detailed opinion found the following: Based upon a review of the evidence herein and the arguments of counsel, I find that Respondent has not met its burden in this case. Although I denied reimbursement in a linked matter dealing with the same date of service, AAA case no. 172212643220, I find that the evidence herein demonstrated that Dr. Loguidice's peer review did not provide a sufficient factual basis nor adequately explain the significance of the pa- tient's ongoing symptomology and objective positive test results contained in the medical records. Importantly, the medical records document the continued com- plaints of persistent right shoulder pain; along with decreased ranges of motion, posi- tive diagnostic testing and positive orthopedic testing including Impingement sign, Neer test, Hawkins test, Belly Press test, Jobe's test, Drop Arm test, O'Brien test and Speed test. I find that Dr. Loguidice's peer report was unpersuasive and overly conclusory with- out a sufficient factual basis or medical rationale to support his conclusion that the services were not medically necessary. Dr. Loguidice apparently did not review or consider the initial evaluation dated 9/17/21, which documented the onset of the Pa- tient's complaints, positive orthopedic tests and their causal relationship to the 7/31/21 accident. A peer review which concludes there was no medical necessity due to the lack of sufficient information upon which the reviewer could make such a de- termination does not set forth a factual basis and medical rationale sufficient to es- tablish the absence of medical necessity. Park Neurological Services P.C. v. GEICO Ins., 4 Misc.3d 95, 782 N.Y.S.2d 506 (App. Term 9th & 10th Dists. 2004). The arbitrator set forth a clear rationale for his decision. The arbitrator laid out in detail why the peer review was deficient. With respect to the differing medical opinions, I must defer to the Arbitrator as the arbitrator was in his purview to weigh such evidence as he deemed appropriate. 2 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 Courts have held with regard to causation of injuries that it is presumed since "it would not be reasonable to insist that (an applicant) must prove as a threshold matter that (a) patient's condition was 'caused' by the automobile accident." Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach, 263 A.D.2d 11, 20 (2d Dept. 1999). Thus, the initial burden is on the insurer to come for- ward with proof establishing by "fact or founded belief" its defense that the claimed injuries have no nexus to the accident, Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Triboro Coach, 263 A.D.2d 11, 19 (2d Dept. 1999) (quoting Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 N.Y.2d 195, 199), that is, that the conditions were not caused or exacerbated by the accident, see Mount Sinai, 263 A.D.2d 11, 18 - 19; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 00351 (App Div 2d Dept., Jan. 20, 2009). Based upon all of the above the arbitrator found the Appellant/Respondent’s arguments and proof insufficient. Now with respect to the Master Arbitrator’s role, the review of this award is limited to the standards set forth in CPLR Article 75 and which was defined by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Petrofsky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 54 NY2d 207 as follows: in cases of compulsory arbitration, this Court has held that article 75 of the CPLR “includes review . . . of whether the award is supported by evidence or 2) other basis in reason.” Mount St. Mary’s v. Catherwood, 26 NY 2d 493. This standard has been interpreted to import into ar- ticle 75 review of compulsory arbitrations the arbitrary and capricious standard of Article 78 review. Caso v. Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; Siegel, New York Practice, Sec. 603, pp. 865- 866. In addition, Article 75 review questions whether the decision was rational or had plau- sible basis. Id. The Court in Petrofsky also held that a Master's powers of review do not en- compass a de novo review of the matter presented to the lower arbitrator and do not author- ize the Master Arbitrator to determine the weight or credibility of the evidence. A Master Arbitrator may not substitute his judgment for that of the arbitrator. See, Matter of Aleman, 62 N.Y.2d 1017 (1984). The grounds for review also include that the decision was incorrect as a matter of law. 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(a)(4). Based on the foregoing, I find the award below was cogently thought out and clearly articu- lated and certainly not irrational, arbitrary and capricious or incorrect as a matter of law. Therefore, I see no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s decision. The award is therefore af- firmed in its entirety. Accordingly, 1. the request for review is hereby denied pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (c) (4) 2. the award reviewed is affirmed in its entirety 3. the award or part thereof in favor of applicant hereby reviewed is vacated and respondent remanded for a new hearing before the lower arbitrator 3 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 before a new arbitrator 4. the award in favor of the applicant hereby reviewed is vacated in its entirety respondent —or— 5. the award reviewed is modified to read as follows: A. The respondent shall pay the applicant no-fault benefits in the sum of Dollars ($ ), as follows: Work/Wage Loss $ Health Service Benefits $ Other Reasonable and Necessary Expenses $ Death Benefit $ Total $ B1. Since the claim(s) in question arose from an accident that occurred prior to April 5, 2002, the insurer shall compute and pay the applicant the amount of interest computed from at the rate of 2% per month, compounded, and ending with the date of payment of the award, subject to the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65- 3.9(c) (stay of interest). B2. Since the claim(s) in question arose from an accident that occurred on or after April 5, 2002, the insurer shall compute and pay the applicant the amount of interest computed from AS PER DECISION at the rate of 2% per month and ending with the date of payment of the award, subject to the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(c) (stay of in- terest). C1. The respondent shall also pay the applicant one hundred thirty dollars ($130 ) for attorney’s fees computed in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(d). The computation is shown below (attach additional sheets if necessary). 4 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 Although I do not see an affidavit, based upon the brief of Appellee, I am awarding two hours. -or- C2. The respondent shall also pay the applicant an attorney’s fee in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(e). However, for all arbitration requests filed on or after April 5, 2002, if the benefits and interest awarded thereon is equal to or less than the re- spondent’s written offer during the conciliation process, then the attorney’s fee shall be based upon the provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(b). C3. Since the charges by the applicant for benefits are for billings on or after April 5, 2002, and exceed the limitations contained in the schedules established pursuant to section 5108 of the Insurance Law, no attorney’s fee shall be payable by the insurer. See 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(i). D. The respondent shall also pay the applicant forty dollars ($40) to reimburse the ap- plicant for the fee paid to the Designated Organization for the arbitration below, un- less the fee was previously returned pursuant to an earlier award PART III. (Complete if applicable.) The applicant in the arbitration reviewed, having prevailed in this review, A. the respondent shall pay the applicant ------------------- dollars ($---------------- for attorney’s fees computed in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j). The computation is shown below (attach additional sheets if necessary) B. If the applicant requested review, the respondent shall also pay the applicant SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($75) to reimburse the applicant for the Master Ar- bitration filing fee. This award determines all of the no-fault policy issues submitted to this master arbitrator pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65- 4.10 State of New York County of New York . ss: 5 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2024 03:23 PM INDEX NO. 606604/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024 I, Robyn D. Weisman , do hereby affirm upon my oath as master arbitrator that I am the individual described in and who executed this instrument, which is my award. March 15, 2024 Date Master Arbitrator’s Signature IMPORTANT NOTICE This award is payable within 21 calendar days of the date of mailing. A copy of this award has been sent to the Superintendent of Insurance. This master arbitration award is final and binding except for CPLR Article 75 review or where the award, exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees, exceeds $5,000, in which case there may be court review de novo (11 NYCRR 65- 4.10(h)). A denial of review pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65- 4.10 (c) (4) (Part II (1) above) shall not form the basis of an action de novo within the meaning of section 5106(c) of the Insurance Law. A party who intends to commence an Article 75 proceeding or an action to adjudicate a dispute de novo shall follow the applicable procedures as set forth in CPLR Article 75. If the party initiating such action is an insurer, payment of all amounts set forth in the master arbitration award which will not be subject of judicial action or review shall be made prior of the commencement of such action. Date of mailing: March 18, 2024 6