Key Takeaway
Learn why conclusory affidavits fail in medical necessity summary judgment motions. Long Island & NYC legal defense strategies. Call 516-750-0595.
Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
When insurance companies challenge the medical necessity of treatments provided to car accident victims, they often file summary judgment motions seeking complete dismissal of no-fault claims. For medical providers throughout Long Island and New York City, the key to defeating these motions lies in submitting detailed, specific evidence that directly addresses and rebuts the insurance company’s arguments.
Unfortunately, many medical practices make the critical error of submitting conclusory affidavits that fail to meaningfully address the insurance company’s evidence, resulting in devastating losses that could have been avoided with proper legal strategy and preparation.
At Jason Tenenbaum New York Law, we’ve successfully defended hundreds of medical providers against these aggressive insurance company tactics throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. Our comprehensive approach to summary judgment opposition ensures that your practice has the best possible chance of defeating these challenges and recovering the compensation owed for legitimate medical services.
Understanding Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
Summary judgment is a powerful legal tool that allows courts to resolve cases without a trial when there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Insurance companies frequently use summary judgment motions to challenge the medical necessity of treatments provided to accident victims, arguing that the services were not required or were excessive.
To succeed on a summary judgment motion, the insurance company must demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the medical provider based on the evidence presented. Typically, they do this by submitting Independent Medical Examination (IME) reports from their own experts who conclude that the treatment in question was not medically necessary.
The Burden-Shifting Framework
Summary judgment motions operate under a burden-shifting framework:
- The moving party (insurance company) must make a prima facie showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
- If successful, the burden shifts to the non-moving party (medical provider) to demonstrate that genuine issues of material fact exist
- The non-moving party must present evidence that creates a triable issue of fact, not merely conclusory allegations
This framework means that medical providers cannot simply rest on their pleadings or submit vague, general statements about medical necessity. They must present specific, detailed evidence that directly contradicts the insurance company’s experts.
Case Analysis: Eastern Star Acupuncture v. Mercury Insurance Co.
Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50380(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit executed by the chiropractor/acupuncturist who had performed an independent medical examination (IME), as well as an affirmed IME report, establishing, prima facie, a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the affirmation of plaintiff’s “supervising acupuncturist” did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the IME report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495 ; see also Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137, 2009 NY Slip Op 52321 ). Accordingly, so much of defendant’s motion as sought dismissal of the claims at issue should have been granted (id.; see also A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131, 2007 NY Slip Op 51342 ).”
The Critical Failure: Lack of Meaningful Rebuttal
The Eastern Star Acupuncture case perfectly illustrates the most common mistake medical providers make when opposing summary judgment motions. The practice submitted an affirmation from their supervising acupuncturist, but this affirmation failed to “meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the IME report.”
This failure was fatal to their case. Even though they had a medical professional willing to support the necessity of their treatment, their affirmation was too general and conclusory to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
The Pattern of Similar Failures
The court cited several other cases with identical outcomes, demonstrating that this is a widespread problem affecting medical providers across New York:
- Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. – Another case where conclusory opposition failed to defeat summary judgment
- Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. – Similar failure to meaningfully rebut IME conclusions
- A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. – Established the principle that general affirmations are insufficient
This pattern shows that New York courts consistently require specific, detailed opposition that directly addresses the insurance company’s evidence.
What Makes an Affidavit “Conclusory”?
Understanding what courts consider “conclusory” is crucial for medical providers seeking to defeat summary judgment motions. An affidavit is considered conclusory when it:
Fails to Address Specific Criticisms
If the insurance company’s IME report identifies specific problems with the treatment (e.g., excessive frequency, inappropriate modalities, lack of objective findings), the opposing affidavit must address each of these criticisms specifically.
Contains Only General Statements
Statements like “the treatment was medically necessary” or “the patient required ongoing care” are insufficient without detailed explanation of why the treatment was necessary and how it related to the patient’s condition.
Lacks Supporting Medical Rationale
Courts expect medical professionals to provide the scientific or clinical reasoning behind their conclusions, not just their ultimate opinion.
Ignores Contradictory Evidence
An effective affidavit must acknowledge and explain any contradictory evidence or findings in the medical records.
Provides No Timeline or Progression Analysis
For ongoing treatments, the affidavit should explain the patient’s progression and why continued treatment remained necessary over time.
Elements of Effective Summary Judgment Opposition
To successfully defeat medical necessity summary judgment motions, medical providers must submit opposition that includes several key elements:
Point-by-Point Rebuttal
Every conclusion in the insurance company’s IME report must be specifically addressed. If the IME doctor says treatment was excessive, explain exactly why it was not. If they question the diagnostic findings, provide detailed support for those findings.
Clinical Justification
Provide detailed medical reasoning for each aspect of treatment, including:
- Initial diagnostic impressions and objective findings
- Treatment goals and expected outcomes
- Patient response to treatment
- Reasons for continuing or modifying treatment plans
- Relevant medical literature or treatment guidelines
Timeline Analysis
For cases involving ongoing treatment, provide a detailed timeline showing:
- Patient’s condition at various points in treatment
- Specific improvements or setbacks
- Rationale for treatment modifications
- Justification for treatment duration
Credentialing and Experience
Establish the qualifications and experience of the medical professional providing the opposition affidavit, particularly in treating similar conditions.
Common Mistakes That Lead to Summary Judgment
Based on our extensive experience defending medical providers against summary judgment motions, several common mistakes repeatedly lead to unsuccessful opposition:
Cookie-Cutter Affidavits
Using template affidavits that don’t specifically address the unique facts and criticisms in each case is a recipe for failure.
Inadequate Medical Record Review
Affidavit authors who haven’t thoroughly reviewed all relevant medical records often miss crucial supporting evidence.
Failure to Address Weaknesses
Ignoring apparent weaknesses in the treatment records rather than addressing them head-on often results in summary judgment for the insurance company.
Late or Rushed Preparation
Summary judgment deadlines are strict. Rushed preparation often results in inadequate opposition that fails to address key issues.
Wrong Expert
Having an expert outside their area of expertise submit an affidavit can undermine the entire opposition.
The Strategic Importance of Early Case Assessment
The key to successful summary judgment opposition often lies in early case assessment and preparation:
Identify Potential Vulnerabilities
Review treatment records early to identify areas that insurance companies are likely to challenge, allowing for proactive evidence gathering.
Develop Supporting Documentation
Gather additional supporting evidence such as diagnostic studies, progress notes, and patient testimonials that strengthen the case.
Expert Witness Selection
Identify and retain qualified experts early in the process, ensuring they have adequate time to thoroughly review records and prepare comprehensive opinions.
Discovery Strategy
Use discovery tools to obtain additional evidence supporting medical necessity and to challenge the insurance company’s experts.
The Role of Expert Medical Testimony
In most cases involving complex medical necessity challenges, expert medical testimony is essential for successful summary judgment opposition:
Independent Review
Independent experts can provide objective analysis of treatment records and medical necessity without the appearance of bias that may affect treating physicians.
Specialized Knowledge
Experts in specific fields can provide detailed analysis based on current medical literature and accepted treatment protocols.
Credibility
Well-qualified experts with impressive credentials can effectively counter insurance company IME doctors.
Educational Value
Expert affidavits can educate judges about complex medical concepts and treatment rationales.
Long Island and NYC Litigation Considerations
Medical providers in the New York metropolitan area face unique challenges in summary judgment opposition:
High Case Volume
The high volume of no-fault cases in Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City means that courts may have less time to carefully review opposition papers, making it even more important that they be clear and compelling.
Experienced Defense Counsel
Insurance companies often employ skilled defense attorneys who are experts at crafting summary judgment motions that exploit common weaknesses in medical provider cases.
Judicial Familiarity
Local judges are very familiar with medical necessity standards and are quick to spot conclusory or inadequate opposition.
Cost Pressures
The high cost of litigation in the New York area puts pressure on medical providers to resolve cases quickly, sometimes leading to inadequate opposition preparation.
Building a Comprehensive Defense Strategy
At Jason Tenenbaum New York Law, we employ a multi-faceted approach to defending against medical necessity summary judgment motions:
Thorough Record Review
We conduct comprehensive reviews of all treatment records, identifying both strengths and potential vulnerabilities in each case.
Expert Network
We maintain relationships with qualified medical experts across multiple specialties who can provide credible, detailed opposition to insurance company challenges.
Strategic Discovery
We use discovery tools aggressively to gather evidence supporting our clients’ positions and to challenge the qualifications and opinions of insurance company experts.
Precedent Research
We stay current on legal developments and use favorable precedents to strengthen our arguments.
The Financial Impact of Summary Judgment Losses
The consequences of losing summary judgment motions can be devastating for medical practices:
Complete Loss of Recovery
Summary judgment typically results in dismissal of the entire claim, meaning no recovery for services that may have been entirely appropriate.
Fee Shifting
In some cases, practices may be required to pay the insurance company’s attorney fees and costs.
Precedential Effect
Losses can establish negative precedents that affect future cases involving the same practice.
Reputation Impact
Repeated summary judgment losses can damage a practice’s reputation and relationships with other healthcare providers.
Best Practices for Medical Providers
To maximize your chances of successfully opposing summary judgment motions, consider these best practices:
Maintain Detailed Records
Comprehensive, detailed treatment records provide the foundation for effective summary judgment opposition.
Document Patient Progress
Regular progress notes that document objective improvements help justify ongoing treatment.
Early Legal Consultation
Consult with experienced no-fault litigation attorneys as soon as you receive notice of a summary judgment motion.
Expert Relationships
Develop relationships with qualified medical experts who can review cases and provide detailed opinions when needed.
Stay Current
Keep up with current medical literature and treatment protocols to support the necessity of your treatment approaches.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How much detail is required in an opposition affidavit?
A: The affidavit must be detailed enough to directly address and rebut each criticism in the insurance company’s motion. General statements are insufficient; specific medical reasoning is required.
Q: Can a treating physician submit the opposition affidavit?
A: Yes, treating physicians can submit opposition affidavits, but they must be detailed and specific. In some cases, independent experts may be more effective.
Q: What happens if we lose the summary judgment motion?
A: Loss typically results in dismissal of the claim, though there may be appeal options depending on the specific circumstances.
Q: How much time do we have to respond to a summary judgment motion?
A: Response deadlines are typically governed by court rules and can be quite short. It’s crucial to begin preparation immediately upon receiving notice.
Q: Can we challenge the insurance company’s IME doctor?
A: Yes, challenging the qualifications, methodology, or conclusions of the IME doctor can be an effective strategy in summary judgment opposition.
Take Action to Protect Your Practice
Don’t let conclusory affidavits cost your practice thousands of dollars in unpaid claims. Summary judgment motions require immediate, strategic response from experienced legal counsel who understand the specific requirements for successful opposition.
If your medical practice has received a summary judgment motion from an insurance company, or if you want to ensure your practice is prepared for these challenges, contact Jason Tenenbaum New York Law today.
Call us immediately at 516-750-0595 for urgent consultation about your summary judgment opposition. We serve medical providers throughout Long Island, including Nassau and Suffolk Counties, as well as all five boroughs of New York City.
Time is critical when dealing with summary judgment motions. Court deadlines are strict, and inadequate preparation can result in complete loss of recovery for services your practice provided in good faith.
At Jason Tenenbaum New York Law, we have the experience, resources, and medical expert network necessary to build compelling opposition to insurance company summary judgment motions. We understand what courts require and know how to present evidence in the most persuasive manner possible.
Don’t let insurance companies use aggressive litigation tactics to avoid paying legitimate claims. Let our experienced team fight for the compensation your practice deserves while protecting your reputation and future business interests.
Contact us today – your practice’s financial future may depend on the actions you take right now.
Related Articles
- Effective strategies for rebutting peer review findings in no-fault cases
- How poorly drafted medical affidavits lead to summary judgment losses
- Why conclusory affidavit statements fail against insurance medical necessity motions
- Understanding the intersection of medical malpractice and no-fault litigation principles
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2010, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone significant amendments, including updates to medical necessity standards, documentation requirements, and summary judgment procedures. Additionally, court decisions interpreting what constitutes sufficient medical evidence and proper opposition to summary judgment motions have evolved considerably. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when preparing medical necessity defenses and summary judgment opposition papers.
