May an expert support his testimony with a journal article or learned treatise on direct examination in explaining why his opinion represents the generally accepted practice in the relevant community?

In federal practice and in the practice of most states that have codified their rules of evidence, the answer to this question is a resounding yes.  Historically, the answer to this question in New York, however, has been a “no”.  Over the last few years, the courts in New York have tackled this question, whether directly or indirectly, and have reached inconsistent decisions.  It is thus a mixed bag as to how a New York court would resolve this issue as you will see below.  I believe that there is one point of consensus on this issue:  an expert on direct examination may mention that a journal article or learned treatise conforms to his or her medical rationale.  Beyond this, the law is unsettled.

The Appellate Division, Second Department in the matter of Zito v. Zabarsky, 28 AD3d 42, 45 (2d Dept. 2006), observed that an expert on direct examination may utilize an authoritative  medical journal for its truth in concluding that the service or procedure was or was not generally accepted in the relevant medical community .  However, two years later, the Appellate Division, First Department came to a contrary ruling.  In Lenzini v. Kessler, 48 AD3d 220 (1st Dept. 2008), the Appellate Division, First Department, observed the following: “Although a scientific text is inadmissible as hearsay when offered for its truth or to establish a standard of care, it may be introduced to cross-examine an expert witness where it has been demonstrated that the work is the type of material commonly relied upon in the profession and has been deemed authoritative by such expert.”

But, in the recent matter of Brown v. Speaker, 2009 NY Slip Op 07156 (1st Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division, First Department, significantly backtracked from their holding in Lenzini.  The Brown Court made the following observation as to the propriety of accepting a medical journal or treatise for the truth of the matter asserted: “Defendants’ expert, testifying about the standard of care at the time of plaintiff’s surgery in 2000, was properly permitted to rely on articles from 1999-2000 journals that were well-respected and accepted by experts in the field.”

So where do we go from here?

The best evidence rule under fire

Madison-68 Corp. v Malpass 2009 NY Slip Op 06154 (1st
Dept. 2009)

“Plaintiff’s objection, made under the best evidence rule, to the admission of the lease rider was properly overruled because it had offered into evidence a copy of the same document.”

First, we saw the end of the New York rule. Now, we have a curtailment of the Best Evidence rule. I am not sure we can cite to Prince Richardson, the Farrell edition, in order to fully understand New York evidence law. Henry David Thoreau said it best: “Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.”

2309 – again

Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 51629(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)
“The affidavits proffered by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment were executed out of state. Although the affidavits were accompanied by documents that purported to be certificates of conformity, the certificates did not comply with Real Property Law § 299-a and, thus, the affidavits did not comply with CPLR 2309 (c)”

Another case involving CPLR § 2309(c). Read my previous comments on this topic.

The standard to rebut a peer review was raised a few notches

Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)

Sensing the belief that no-fault actions were starting to follow the trend in Ins Law 5102(d) actions (the no-fault threshold statute), the Defendant appealed the order finding that Plaintiff’s affidavit of merit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, in opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Factually, this case involved $660 worth of diagnostic testing. Defendant’s peer review set forth numerous reasons and cited to various authorities for the proposition that the diagnostic testing was either never necessary or not necessary in relation to the patient’s presented symptomology.

Plaintiff relied on the reports annexed to Defendant’s papers and concluded that the services were indeed medically necessary. There was no meaningful disagreement with Defendant’s doctor’s medical rationale for finding that the services lacked medical necessity.

The Court in applying the meaningful disagreement standard found in 5102(d) causation cases rightly found that Plaintiff failed to rebut the inference that the services lacked medical necessity.

I would opine that a provider, in successfully opposing this type of motion, is going to have to send these cases to their own peer doctor to perform a utilization review in their own right in order to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This should be interesting.

Collateral Estoppel may not apply in no-fault arbitrations – so says the Fourth Department


In a very interesting case, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that principles of collateral estoppel do not apply in arbitration.

Matter of Falzone v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 05423 (4th Dept. 2009)

In this case, a Claimant initially arbitrated a no-fault claim between himself and his insurance carrier. The issue that was arbitrated involved whether Claimant’s injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident. A no-fault arbitrator found the injuries to be causally related to the motor vehicle accident and awarded benefits.

The Claimant after obtaining an award for no fault benefits then sought to obtain SUM benefits arising from the same loss. Accordingly, Claimant commenced a second arbitration between himself and the same carrier upon which he was awarded no-fault benefits. The insurance carrier’s defense to payment in this SUM arbitration, similar to that in the no-fault arbitration, was that there was a lack of a causal nexus between the motor vehicle accident and the alleged injuries.

Since the parties and issues to be resolved in this SUM matter were the same as that in the no-fault matter, i.e., whether the injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident, you would think that principles of collateral estoppel would come into play and bind the SUM arbitrator to the same decision as that of the no-fault arbitrator. As we saw in a previous post involving the matter of Lobel v. Allstate, a no-fault arbitrator’s decision on causation will collaterally estopp a party from re-litigating a previously arbitrated issue in Court. Yet, the SUM arbitrator, aware that the prior arbitrator found a causal nexus existed between the motor vehicle accident and the injuries, nonetheless ruled that there was no causal connection between the injuries and the motor vehicle accident.

An Article 75 challenge was lodged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the SUM arbitrator’s decision and properly found that the results of the no-fault arbitration collaterally estopped the parties from contesting the causal relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the injuries at the SUM arbitration. Thus, the SUM arbitratror, as a matter of law, had to find that there was a causal relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the loss. The carrier appealed and the Fourth Department surprisingly reversed the order and judgment of the Supreme Court as set forth herein:

We agree with respondent that Supreme Court erred in granting claimant’s motion. The fact that a prior arbitration award is inconsistent with a subsequent award is not an enumerated ground in either subdivision (b) or (c) of CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying the subsequent award (see Matter of City School Dist. of City of Tonawanda v Tonawanda Educ. Assn., 63 NY2d 846, 848). As the court properly recognized, “[i]t was within the [SUM] arbitrator’s authority to determine the preclusive effect of the prior arbitration on the instant arbitration” (Matter of Progressive N. Ins. Co. v Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co., 51 AD3d 800, 801). The court erred in noting, however, that it was unable to determine whether the SUM arbitrator even considered claimant’s contention with respect to collateral estoppel. Arbitrators are not required to provide reasons for their decisions (see Matter of Solow Bldg. Co. v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 6 AD3d 356, 356-357, lv denied 3 NY3d 605, cert denied 543 US 1148; Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 AD2d 40, 41), and thus the SUM arbitrator was not required to state that he had considered that contention. “

Two points need to be considered. First, the Fourth Department cites a 2007 Second Department case entitled Matter of Progressive N. Ins. Co. v Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co. for its rule of law. Yet, the Progressive case actually held that collateral estoppel should be given effect to prior arbitration awards involving the same parties and the same issue. Second, there was a two Justice dissent, which as a matter of right brings this case to the Court of Appeals.

For the sake of commonsense, this case should be reversed. Otherwise, there will be too many instances where inconsistent decisions will arise in post-ime cases, other policy violation cases and coverage cases, among others. It would be a fair assessment to say that no-fault and other first-party practitioners will not benefit from the uncertainty and some could say absurdity that this case could rein upon the arbitral process.

2106 again…

In the world of appellate practice, there are three types of appeals you can take up. The first type of appeal involves the instance where you know you are going to lose, but there is some overriding interest which compels you to file and perfect the appeal. I think this is usually relegated to the criminal side of the arena or issues involving large monetary awards that need to be challenged. These are the shot in the dark appeals. In order to win this type of appeal, spin around three times, throw a dart, and see if you can hit the bulls eye.

The second type of appeal you could take up is one where you believe the law should be a certain way, and there is case law or other sources of law out there, which if favorably construed, could support your position. This is also the category of appeal where I think if you repeat yourself a few thousand times, you might get heard. This is probably where the Dan Medical line of cases came from. I also believe that this is how the “AB v. Liberty” line of cases and the “old” Appellate Term, Fogel line of cases eventually died a well deserved death at the Appellate Division.

And then there is the third type of appeal. This is the one where the law is established, the facts are properly presented to the lower court and, for whatever reason, the lower court chooses to depart from settled precedent.

And now…
St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 50810(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)

In this case, Defendant moved for summary judgment based upon a prima facie showing that the contested services lacked medical necessity. There was approximately $6,000 in disputed billing, involving all types of modalities of treatment. The fourth cause of action, which was not disputed, involved a $71.49 office visit, if memory serves correct.

Plaintiff cross-moved and opposed the underlying summary judgment. Plaintiff, in opposition to Defendant’s motion argued that: (Issue #1) a business record predicate was not set forth in Defendant’s moving papers; (Issue #2) the denials were not timely and properly mailed; and (Issue #3) the services were medically necessary. The Appellate Term, for the first time, commented on Issue #1, finding that Defendant’s papers set forth a business record predicate for the admission of the denials into evidence. Those who have followed the law know that the Appellate Division, Second Department, has ruled on this issue, albeit the last time in 2006 and the first time 2004.

Issue #2 was quickly disposed of since the affidavit that was presented has previously been held to adequately describe the mailing procedure.

Issue #3 is the reason this case went up the appellate ladder. Plaintiff, in her opposition papers, presented an affirmation of Dr. Zakharov. Upon a search of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) website, it was learned that Dr. Zakharov was the President of this corporation. CPLR 2106 expressly disallows a party to “affirm” to the truth of matters set forth in the litigation, and at least three cases previously held that a member of a business organization who is a party to the litigation may not use the CPLR 2106 affirmation process.

A proper objection along with the printout of the OPR site were set forth in Defendant’s reply papers. Incidentally, some have argued (and there was merit to this argument) that the OPR record needed to be certified. CPLR 4518(c). I think we can all agree that after Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 00351 (2d Dept 2009), this objection is palpably without merit.

Plaintiff’s papers were properly excluded. Having failed to raise a triable issue of fact, summary judgment was awarded to Defendant.

Pine Hollow – dead

It is nice to see the death of a case, which was improperly decided in the first instance. In many ways, it is a vindication to those of us who believed Pine Hollow created a scenario that left the business record rule, naked and without potency. Caruthers pretty much fixes up the mess Pine Hollow created.

But, the better question is whether one really needs to satisfy CPLR 4518(a) to make a prima facie case?

To be Lobelled

I have always said that to understand no-fault, you need to understand bodily injury law. This is typified through instances where the result of an assigned no-fault case can fatally destroy the personal injury case for the assignor.

This issue I think rears its ugly head most often times in the so-called “causation” scenarios, where the defense to the no-fault claim is that the injuries are not causally related to the underlying motor vehicle accident. The question that arises is what happens to the corresponding personal injury claim of the assignor if the insurance carrier succeeds in proving this defense?

This is when one must understand the term: “to be lobelled”. Here is the case:

Lobel v. Allstate Ins. Co. 269 A.D.2d 502 (2d Dept. 2002).

“The defendant moved to dismiss the cause of action to recover no-fault benefits on the ground that it was barred by a prior arbitration proceeding between the plaintiff’s assignee and the defendant, which resulted in a determination that there was no casual connection between the plaintiff’s lower back condition and the subject automobile accident. The defendant demonstrated that the issue in the **489 arbitration proceeding was identical to and decisive of this cause of action. The plaintiff failed to establish the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior matter”.

I think the bolded words speak for themselves.

Oh yes, what about the IME cut-off that is upheld? How does this impact the assignor’s personal injury case? Barnett v. Ives 265 A.D.2d 865 (4th Dept.1994).

In Barnett, the Appellate Division held that an arbitration award which found that an injured person was not longer injured as a result of the accident, whether phrased as a causation or medical necessity determination, is collateral estoppel to the injured person in a personal injury case. As observed from the facts should you pull the case up, it is potentially catosrophic in terms of proving the two most potent 5102(d) categories: (a) Significant Limitation; and (b) Permanent Consequential. Furthermore, even if you can prove Significant Limitation or 90/180, an adervse arbitration ruling would knock out future damages, which many times is the crux of the BI case. It may also call into question the degree of actual injury, which may limit damages for past pain and suffering and past economic injury.


In the matter of PLP Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 NYSlipOp 50491(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009), the Appellate Term observed the following:

Defendant’s affirmed peer review report and the affidavit of its peer review acupuncturist established prima facie that there was no medical necessity for the services provided by plaintiff. We note that as some of the medical reports relied upon by defendant’s acupuncturist in his peer review report were prepared by plaintiff, plaintiff could not challenge the reliability of its own medical records and reports (see Cross Cont. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]; see also Home [*2]Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]). Furthermore, since it has been held that an “expert witness’s testimony of reliance upon out-of-court material to form an opinion may be received in evidence, provided there is proof of reliability” (Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84, 85-86 [2002]), the fact that defendant’s peer reviewer relied upon medical reports from other medical providers in forming his opinion as to the medical necessity of the service performed does not render the peer review report insufficient to establish a lack of medical necessity.

Two observations:

1) There was no reason to reach, rely or discuss Wagman. It is hornbook law that the Defendant may use the Plaintiff’s [whether it be assignor or assignee] medical records against him or his assignee. I have dedicated numerous posts on this point.

2) Can Plaintiffs in threshold cases get around the current requirement that the reports their experts rely on be “affirmed” or “sworn to”, because of the Appellate Term’s interpretation of Wagman?

3) Has the spill-over effect of no-fault litigation once again contaminated other areas of law?

Dangerous case. Proper result, poorly reasoned.

"Kids, dont try this at home"

I got that line from another blogger. That comment refers to a case that is anything but remarkable.

Although there was a long and very thoughtful dissent on what the probably should be, the majority made two salient points.

Continental Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co.
2009 NYSlipOp 50234(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)

“Although chiropractors may not affirm pursuant to CPLR 2106 this defect was waived since plaintiff failed to object in the court below. As a result, the IME report proffered by defendant established defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor were not medically necessary”

“In opposition, plaintiff proffered an unsworn medical report which was “dictated but not read.” Thus, it was of no probative value. Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie case, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted”

I think, and this is just me, but New York should follow the Federal and New Jersey model where a party can submit a “certification”, which would have the same force and effect as an affidavit. In the criminal realm, this is done all the time. But the law is what it is…