Peer doctor's testimony is sufficient to prima facie demonstrate a service's lack of medical necessityApril 25, 2010
Speciality Surgical Servs. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50715(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“At trial, defendant’s doctor testified that the services provided were not medically necessary, and defendant also admitted into evidence a copy of the doctor’s affirmed peer review report, which was to the same effect. Both the doctor’s testimony and his report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his conclusion that the services rendered were not medical necessary. This evidence was not rebutted by plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, we disagree [*2]with the District Court’s finding that defendant failed to establish that the services provided were not medically necessary. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.”
There was also a discussion regarding the validity of an assignment of benefits, but this issue was foreclosed due to the failure to address it during the claims stage.
I am more intrigued by the summary reversal of the District Court’s decision, after trial, that the services lacked medical necessity. Of course, we have no idea whether the reversal was on the law (CPLR 4404[a]), in the exercise of the appellate court’s broad discretion, or based upon the appellate court’s opinion that the trial court’s decision was against the weight of the evidence. Also, it is interesting how the court made mention of a peer report which, in effect, bolstered the peer doctor’s testimony.
I would hope, for the plaintiff’s bar, that the District Court sat solely as a proverbial “13th juror”, which would render the reversal as based upon the decision being against the weight of the evidence. If this decision was based on the law, then it would appear that as long as the testimony is not conclusory and supported by admissible evidence, a trial court is bound to find for the defendant absent rebuttal testimony.
I would like to see the appellate courts evaluate more of these unrebutted medical necessity trial cases, before I come to any conclusions.