Key Takeaway
Cariddi was a 2007 injury case, not a universal peer-review attachment rule. Read the distinctions involving expert foundations, missing records and IMEs.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 170 published articles analyzing medical necessity issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Cariddi v Hassan, 45 AD3d 516 (2007) supports a narrower point than this page previously claimed. It was a personal-injury causation decision, not a ruling that every no-fault peer review must attach its entire file. The correct decision date is November 7, 2007.
Historical note: Cariddi addresses the evidentiary record for a 2007 tort motion; Carlson v Manning (2022) distinguishes an expert’s own interpretation from sole reliance on an unproduced third-party opinion, rather than imposing a universal attachment rule.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
What was missing in Cariddi
Dr. Katz examined the plaintiff. His hip-causation opinion depended on earlier doctors’ notes that neither he nor the defendants supplied. That report alone did not establish that the hip injury was unrelated to the accident. The court separately found the defendants’ radiologist’s submission sufficient initially, but an opposing MRI interpretation raised a factual issue. An IME label therefore creates no blanket exemption, and a missing attachment does not automatically decide the whole motion.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Carlson v Manning, 208 AD3d 997 (2022) shows why the basis of the opinion matters. The Fourth Department accepted an expert’s own interpretation supported by the record despite a missing CT scan, but rejected an addendum resting solely on another person’s unproduced opinion. Ask what the expert personally knows and what the motion record actually supplies.
Under CPLR 3212(b), the moving party must establish its entitlement to judgment. Identify unsupported premises and preserve applicable evidentiary objections in the opposition. The insurer’s failure to win its motion does not automatically prove a provider’s own claim or cross-motion.
Jason’s original 2009 commentary
Jason’s 2009 critique of unsupported file reviews is preserved below. His closing statement that this does not apply to IMEs is too broad: Katz had examined the plaintiff. Cariddi also does not establish the quoted categorical waiver rule; preservation depends on the objection and record.
I encounter on many levels summary judgment motions predicated upon the defense that a service lacks medical necessity in accordance with a peer review which finds that a given service is medically unreasonable. Invariably, the motion only annexed the peer review.
The opponent to the motion now has to scramble to find the documents the peer reviewer examined, and then the opponent needs to retain an expert to review these records in order to conclude that the services were medically necessary.
I think we missed a step here. Why was the movant able to get away with attaching a FILE based review without annexing the file? Are we to throw caution to the wind and blindly trust the peer doctor’s interpretation of the plaintiff’s records? Indeed, the way plaintiffs win trials is through poking holes in the peer doctor’s medical rationale viz a vi the plaintiff’s medical records. Conversely, a defendant faced with a treating doctor will do the same thing to beat him or her.
Perhaps the better question is why, mister plaintiff did you not object to the defendant’s putting the cart before the horse through his making a summary judgment motion without any documentaty evidence to support it?
Maybe the question that really needs to be answered is why we allow ourselves to accept shoddy practices and mediocrity under the guise of “volume”?
Of course, one caveat needs to be stressed. The failure to object to a moving party’s reliance on materials not before the court is waived if not properly objected to. Unobjected to hearsay is competent evidence. Use it or lose it. Oh, and this does not apply to IME based motions.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the pre-existing injuries and causation topic hub.
- Johnson: causal proof on a default-judgment application
- Donoso: missing causal proof at trial, distinguished from stipulated no-fault records
- Malloy: medical reasons connecting a knee injury to the collision
- Shah: the defense expert’s unexplained post-accident ROM loss
- Imran: a biomechanical opinion without a proper foundation
For review of a particular dispute, contact the firm.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Medical Necessity Disputes in No-Fault Insurance
Medical necessity is the most common basis for no-fault claim denials in New York. Insurers hire peer reviewers to opine that treatment was not medically necessary, shifting the burden to providers and claimants to demonstrate otherwise. The legal standards for establishing and rebutting medical necessity — including the sufficiency of peer review reports, the qualifications of reviewing physicians, and the evidentiary burdens at arbitration and trial — are the subject of extensive case law. These articles provide detailed analysis of medical necessity litigation strategies and court decisions.
170 published articles in Medical Necessity
Keep Reading
More Medical Necessity Analysis
MUA is dangerous
Mollo's 2020 MUA ruling turned on competing expert testimony. Read the actual trial result without treating an expert's safety concerns as a universal rule.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
DRD Medical defeated the insurer's motion in 2020. Compare the court's finding of a factual dispute with Jason's original criticism of the affidavit.
Apr 27, 2020
IME Cut Off Not Rebutted: Generic Therapist Affidavit Cannot Defeat the Insurer's IME Findings
Mendoza dismissed specified physical-therapy claims after an inadequate IME rebuttal. Read the findings, timely-denial proof and limits of the decision.
Jun 22, 2015
“Deviation” does not need to be established with medical literature.
Court rules medical experts don't need literature citations to establish treatment deviation in no-fault cases, relying on professional experience instead.
Mar 9, 2013
Crazy
Amato's 2010 IME-cutoff ruling was reversed in 2013. Read that result alongside Jason's original criticism, without treating it as current claims advice.
Oct 27, 2010
Medical Necessity Evidence Standards in No-Fault Law | Long Island Lawyer | Jason Tenenbaum
Separate Park Slope's 2009 holding from Jason's missing-records theory. Later Elmont authority rejected an automatic medical-record attachment requirement.
Mar 19, 2009Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
5 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What is a peer review in New York no-fault insurance cases?
A peer review evaluates medical records rather than personally examining the patient. This page concerns whether the expert's opinion is supported for motion practice; Cariddi itself was a personal-injury causation case, not a no-fault peer-review decision.
Must peer review reports include the underlying medical records they relied upon?
Cariddi does not establish a universal attachment rule for no-fault peer reviews. Katz's hip-causation opinion relied on earlier records absent from the motion. The relevant questions include what the expert personally knows, what materials support the opinion and what the moving party must prove.
What is the difference between peer review motions and IME-based motions in no-fault cases?
A peer reviewer evaluates a file; an IME physician examines the patient. Neither label resolves every evidentiary question. Katz had examined the plaintiff in Cariddi, so the case does not support a blanket IME exemption from objections to unsupported opinions.
When must an objection to missing documentation be raised in no-fault summary judgment proceedings?
Raise applicable objections to an expert's foundation or missing supporting materials in the opposition papers and follow the governing motion schedule. Cariddi does not announce a universal waiver rule for every missing-record objection; admissibility, preservation and sufficiency must be assessed separately.
How can healthcare providers challenge inadequate peer review summary judgment motions in Long Island courts?
Identify the unsupported factual or medical premise and explain why it matters to the insurer's burden. Depending on the record, contrary expert proof may also be needed. Denial of the insurer's motion does not automatically establish the provider's own entitlement to judgment.
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a medical necessity matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
