Key Takeaway
Innovative Chiropractic's 2010 appeal turned on timely denials, a peer review and an IME. The treating doctor's bare reaffirmation did not answer that proof.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 171 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.
Innovative Chiropractic v New York Central Mutual ended with dismissal of the provider’s complaint on May 13, 2010. The Appellate Term reversed the provider’s judgment, vacated the lower order, granted the insurer’s summary-judgment motion and denied the provider’s cross motion.
Historical note: Innovative Chiropractic (2010) applied the insurer’s initial burden and the provider’s obligation to answer supported medical evidence, the sequence contrasted in Easy Care (2015).
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Why the opposition failed
The insurer first established timely mailing of its denials. Its chiropractors supplied both a sworn peer review and a sworn IME report with a factual basis and medical rationale for finding the treatment unnecessary. The provider’s treating doctor then reaffirmed that the services were necessary without discussing either chiropractor’s determination.
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 court found that response insufficient under Pan Chiropractic v Mercury. Being the treating doctor did not make a bare reaffirmation responsive evidence.
The insurer first had to support its own motion. Only then did the provider need to raise a factual dispute. Compare Easy Care’s 2015 appeal, where the insurer’s initial medical showing failed despite inadequate opposition. Neither decision supplies a word-count requirement for an affidavit.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical-necessity case directory.
- Darlington: an affidavit without medical foundation
- Prime Psychological: inadequate opposition and two contrasting outcomes
- New Life Medical: two peer reviews left unanswered
- Easy Care: an insufficient insurer motion despite weak opposition
For review of a particular claim or motion, 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.
171 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
Innovative MR Imaging v Praetorian — Why Unsworn Chiropractor Letters Still Sink Medical Necessity Cases in 2026
The 2013 Appellate Term decision in Innovative MR Imaging, P.C. v Praetorian Insurance Co.
Feb 24, 2013
Prima facie entitlement to summary judgment was not established through an unsigned peer report
Court rules that unsigned peer review reports cannot establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in no-fault insurance medical necessity disputes.
Oct 8, 2010
Understanding Foundation Requirements in Medical Malpractice Expert Testimony
New York medical malpractice expert testimony foundation requirements.
Dec 28, 2008Was 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.
