Key Takeaway
Learn how conclusory affidavits fail to defeat insurance carriers' summary judgment motions in NY no-fault cases. Bronze Acupuncture v Mercury shows what works.
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.
Bronze Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 51219(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)
This case hints at what a medical provider must proffer in its answering papers to stave off an insurance carrier’s summary judgment motion, based upon the lack of medical necessity of a rendered service.
In this case, a conclusory or boilerplate affidavit attesting to a service’s lack of medical necessity is insufficient to raise an issue of fact.
Here is the holding:
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.
“The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, including the affirmed IME report and an affidavit executed by the acupuncturist who performed the IME, established, prima facie, a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. The opposing affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s treating acupuncturist merely stated that she disagreed with the results of the IME report without setting forth any facts to support her conclusion. Consequently, the opposition papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity.”
This should be compared to the operative language inPark Slope Medical and Surgical Supply Inc. v. New York Central Mut. Fire Ins. 22 Misc.3d 141(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) , where the court held the following: “laintiff submitted an affidavit from Dr. Shapiro in which he stated that he disagreed with the peer review report and affidavit furnished by defendant because he concluded that the supplies provided were medically necessary. Since the affidavit of Dr. Shapiro demonstrated the existence of an issue of fact as to medical necessity.”
The next question will be what facts are sufficient to support the conclusion that a service is medically necessary. I guarantee it is not going to be the regurgitation of the documents a peer review doctor examined. I also guarantee it is not going to be the boilerplate one size fits all affidavit we saw in Park Slope, which we can probably now say is bad law.
I know there will be many more of these types of appeals, and this issue will be answered at some time in the future.
Related Articles
- Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
- A prima facie case of medical necessity?
- An IME doctor must offer an explanation why he believes a Claimant’s diminished range of motion is self restricted
- May an insurance carrier’s expert offer an opinion beyond the confines of his peer or IME report?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2009 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding medical necessity standards, peer review procedures, and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment motions. Additionally, appellate courts have issued numerous decisions that may have refined or expanded upon the sufficiency standards for medical affidavits discussed in this case. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when preparing opposition papers to summary judgment motions based on medical necessity challenges.
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
Court finds MUA treatment too aggressive without proper foundation. Expert testimony on medical necessity prevails in no-fault insurance dispute.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
New York court finds conflicting medical opinions create triable issue on physical therapy necessity, despite provider's weak affidavit of merit in no-fault insurance case.
Apr 27, 2020
Peer hearsay and electronic signatures
Appellate court rules on peer review requirements and electronic signature validity in no-fault insurance disputes, clarifying evidence standards for medical necessity challenges.
May 25, 2012
Another Pan Medical sighting (or is it citing?)
New York court reinforces Pan Chiropractic standard for medical necessity denials, requiring affirmed peer review reports with factual basis and medical rationale.
Apr 25, 2010
“Not based on an examination”
Court rules medical affirmation insufficient when not based on patient examination and fails to rebut defendant's examining physician findings.
Nov 30, 2018
The inability to recall which shoulder was hurt damages the plaintiff’s case
In Fludd v Pena, a plaintiff's inability to recall which shoulder was injured and failure to complain about shoulder pain at IME severely damaged their case.
Nov 14, 2014Was 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.
