On October 29, 2008, Plaintiff settled her remaining claims against her workers’ compensation plan for $3,300.00. See Defendant’s Exhibit C [Docket #48-6]. Plaintiff provides evidence showing her non-approved medical expenses totaled $8,013.12. See Plaintiffs Exhibit B [Docket # 58-3]. Defendant argues Plaintiff waived any right to seek reimbursement under her no-fault coverage for the additional expenses when she entered into a settlement agreement with her workers’ compensation provider. Under the facts alleged, I disagree. Under New York law, if a claimant has her workers’ compensation claim denied — as Plaintiffs evidence shows her claim was — such claims are not “recovered or recoverable.” See Hartford Ins. Group v. Mendez, 93 Misc.2d 957, 404 N.Y.S.2d 519, 521 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1978) (<HOLDING>); see also Arvatz v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171
holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding if a workers compensation carrier denies liability for medical expenses of its insured the nofault carrier is bound promptly to pay benefits concerning such expenses under its policy holding claimant would be entitled to renew claim against nofault insurer upon a showing by the claimant that application has been made for payment of the medical claims in question under workmens compensation and that there has been a disclaimer of liability for such payment by the workmens compensation carrier