Key Takeaway
Alur Medical applied Pan Chiropractic to an unrebutted equipment review. Medical necessity was not automatically reserved for trial.
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.
Calling medical necessity the remaining issue for trial did not prevent the insurer from winning summary judgment in Alur Medical. The provider still had to respond to the supported medical showing on the cross-motion.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Alur concerns an unrebutted motion, not a trial finding that every item of equipment is unnecessary. Read the 2010 decision.
Why Alur was dismissed
Alur Medical Supply, Inc. v Clarendon National Insurance Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50700(U), decided April 13, 2010, concerned medical equipment. The Civil Court denied both sides’ motions and identified medical necessity as the remaining trial issue. The provider conceded timely denials but argued that a factual dispute prevented judgment.
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 Appellate Term disagreed. The affirmed peer review explained why the equipment was unnecessary, and the provider supplied no evidence rebutting that showing. The insurer’s cross-motion was granted.
The Pan Chiropractic connection
Pan Chiropractic v Mercury, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U), supplied the cited rebuttal rule. Alur did not hold that attaching any copy of a peer report automatically establishes a defense. Nor was this a verdict after witnesses testified. The trial decisions linked below address a different stage of the case.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review encyclopedia, then compare these records:
- Three 2010 applications of Pan Chiropractic
- Innovative Chiropractic: different results for two claims
- B.Y., M.D.: an incomplete opposing affirmation
- Ocean Diagnostic: medical proof the insurer did not answer
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
Geico now joins the Mercury and NYCM club in having their medical necesity motions denied based upon boilerplate letters of medical necessity
GEICO joins Mercury & NYCM with denied medical necessity motions. Important precedent for Long Island & NYC medical providers defending no-fault claims.
Feb 21, 2011
A physician's affirmation and a chiropractor's affidavit will prove the lack of medical necessity of medical equipment
Expert analysis of medical equipment peer review determinations in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Nov 12, 2009
Medical Necessity Rebuttal Affidavits: When a Run-of-the-Mill Case Becomes a Roll of the Dice
Throgs Neck rejected an inadequate IME rebuttal. Compare South Nassau and Duke Acupuncture with Jason's original 2015 reaction to the different outcomes.
Dec 7, 2015
Triable issue of fact – medical necessity
Hunt City's 2013 medical-necessity ruling left conflicting expert opinions for trial. The opinion does not identify a post-IME cutoff or detail the affidavits.
Oct 20, 2013Was 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.
