Key Takeaway
Bronze Acupuncture rejected unsupported disagreement with an IME. Compare Park Slope without treating Jason's prediction as an overruling.
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 rejected a provider’s unsupported disagreement with an IME. The original note’s phrase ‘lack of medical necessity’ reverses what that provider was trying to show: its opposition defended the necessity of the services.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Bronze Acupuncture addresses unsupported opposition; it does not expressly overrule Park Slope. Read the 2009 decision.
The ruling—not an overruling prediction
Bronze Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Insurance Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 51219(U), decided June 12, 2009, found timely mailing and supported IME evidence. The treating acupuncturist’s response disagreed without facts supporting the conclusion. The Appellate Term granted dismissal of the four claims at issue.
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.
Jason compared that result with Park Slope Medical & Surgical Supply v New York Central Mutual, 2009 NY Slip Op 50441(U). In that separate record, the opposing doctor’s affidavit raised a factual dispute and the insurer’s cross-motion remained denied.
Bronze does not say that it overruled Park Slope. Jason’s prediction is preserved below as a contemporary assessment, not a current citator result. Comparing the underlying affidavits would require more than the short published opinions; neither decision makes affidavit length the standard.
Jason’s original 2009 note
Jason’s original 2009 comments follow. In the first passage, ‘lack of medical necessity’ reverses the provider’s position: the provider was defending necessity. His later ‘bad law’ prediction is not a verified overruling of Park Slope.
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.
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.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review encyclopedia, then compare these records:
- Innovative Chiropractic: different results for two claims
- Three 2010 applications of Pan Chiropractic
- Ocean Diagnostic: medical proof the insurer did not answer
- Five Boro: missing report pages and sufficient opposition
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the relevant reports and motion papers.
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
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?)
Alur Medical applied Pan Chiropractic to an unrebutted equipment review. Medical necessity was not automatically reserved for trial.
Apr 25, 2010
“Not based on an examination”
Forest Drugs rejected a particular medical affirmation in 2018. Read the IME evidence and inadequate rebuttal without adding a universal examination rule.
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.
