Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, issued an order on September 16, 1997, which was affirmed on appeal. The appeal concerned a plaintiff's cross motion demanding that the defendant utilize only "participating providers" from the plaintiff's health insurance plan. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, clarifying that the divorce judgment does not mandate the defendant to limit healthcare providers to those participating in the plaintiff's insurance plan. It noted that this decision does not imply that the plaintiff is obligated to cover any unreimbursed expenses incurred by the defendant when opting for a nonparticipating provider, a matter raised in the defendant's main motion but not decided by the lower court. The decision was unanimous among the justices, including Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, and Saxe, JJ.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of Divorce Judgment in Healthcare Contextsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the divorce judgment does not require the defendant to restrict healthcare providers to those within the plaintiff's health insurance plan.
Reasoning: The court upheld the lower court's ruling, clarifying that the divorce judgment does not mandate the defendant to limit healthcare providers to those participating in the plaintiff's insurance plan.
Obligations for Unreimbursed Healthcare Expensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision states that the plaintiff is not necessarily responsible for covering unreimbursed expenses if the defendant chooses a nonparticipating provider, an issue not resolved by the lower court.
Reasoning: It noted that this decision does not imply that the plaintiff is obligated to cover any unreimbursed expenses incurred by the defendant when opting for a nonparticipating provider, a matter raised in the defendant's main motion but not decided by the lower court.
Unanimous Appellate Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The affirmation of the lower court's order was supported unanimously by the appellate justices.
Reasoning: The decision was unanimous among the justices, including Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, and Saxe, JJ.