Key Takeaway
Learn how summary judgment motions in no-fault insurance cases can backfire on carriers when discovery rules work against them in medical necessity disputes.
This article is part of our ongoing mailing coverage, with 286 published articles analyzing mailing 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.
Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51588(U)(Dis. Ct. Nassau Co. 2010)
I would put this case in the “be careful what you ask for” category, because the insurance carrier got what it sought. To briefly explain, the insurance carrier filed a summary judgment motion based upon the services lacking medical reasonableness in accordance with a peer review. Plaintiff put in answering papers, bereft of an affidavit of merit.
District court ruled that the denial was timely mailed, but the submissions in support of the summary judgment motion were insufficient to prima facie establish a lack of medical necessity. I will get to this point later.
Somebody filed a notice of trial, a demand for a trial de novo was somewhere filed, and now this matter is on for trial. The insurance carrier seeks to have Plaintiff prove it mailed the claim forms, and to have Plaintiff lay a business record foundation for the admission of the bills into evidence.
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.
At trial, District Court properly forced Plaintiff to lay a business record foundation for the admission of the claim forms into evidence, since Plaintiff never previously cross-moved for partial summary judgment and this issue was never adjudicated. The District Court, however, properly found that the insurance carrier’s summary judgment motion rendered the mailing issue moot. The fact is a summary judgment motion is the functional equivalent of a trial. If an affidavit states a bill was received and was denied, then it is impossible for an insurance carrier to escape that element of a plaintiff’s prima facie case during a later proceeding, i.e., the trial.
But this brings me to the title of my post. In a medical necessity case, an insurance carrier’s properly supported motion for summary judgment, includes the following: the denials, the affidavit of the claims representative indicating proof of receipt of the bill, the mailing of the denial, the IME or peer report and the underlying medical records. This documentary evidence affords the medical provider or injured person all the discovery they need to proceed to trial, provided the summary judgment motion is properly defeated. Furthermore, as seen above, this documentary evidence serves the exact function of verified interrogatories or an unanswered or admitted to Notice to Admit: admission of receipt of the bill and that the claim is overdue.
This now bring me to my last point. Were the MRI’s referred and prescribed by the chiropractor? If they were, then the case law seems to be that the medical reasonableness is determined through the shoes of the referring expert. I discussed this issue in previous posts. The point being that upholding the medical necessity based solely on Dr. Liguori’s medical records seems to be improper and an end around the chiropractor’s referral for the testing. Also, were the reviewed documents provided for in the summary judgment motion? If they were, then summary judgment should have been granted provided: the standard factual basis and medical rationale test was met and the said documents did not negate the peer review, i.e., Hillcrest MRI.
Perhaps this case should be appealed on the latter points?
Related Articles
- Understanding prima facie medical necessity requirements
- Peer review report challenges in Elmont Open MRI cases
- Why conclusory affidavits fail in medical necessity summary judgment motions
- First Department’s medical necessity ruling favoring insurance carriers
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments affecting summary judgment standards, medical necessity review procedures, and evidentiary requirements for business records in insurance disputes. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions interpreting summary judgment motions in no-fault cases, as procedural and substantive standards may have evolved significantly.
Related: What “de novo” means in New York — trial de novo and de novo review, explained.
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
Proof of Mailing in New York No-Fault Practice
Proof of mailing is a foundational issue in no-fault litigation. Insurers must prove timely mailing of denial forms, verification requests, and EUO scheduling letters, while providers and claimants must prove timely submission of claim forms and bills. Establishing a standard office mailing procedure through business records — and the presumption of receipt that follows — is heavily litigated. These articles examine the evidentiary standards for proving and challenging mailing in New York no-fault cases.
286 published articles in Mailing
Keep Reading
More Mailing Analysis
Putting the wrong floor is not fatal
Court rules that incorrect floor designation in IME notice mailing address is not fatal when building address is otherwise correct and proper mailing procedures followed.
Mar 22, 2021
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
Appellate Term Second Department expounds on sufficient medical rationale in DME case
Park Slope Medical rejected a nonresponsive DME rebuttal in 2013. The decision concerns the evidence for particular supplies, not a three-therapy limit.
May 16, 2013
Understanding Third-Party Billing Records in New York No-Fault Claims: Appellate Term’s First Application of Carothers
Expert analysis of Appellate Term decision on third-party billing records in NY no-fault claims. Carothers application from experienced Long Island attorney.
Feb 12, 2011
Pine Hollow Dead: Business Records Rule Restored in NY Personal Injury Law
Pine Hollow case overruled, restoring proper business records standards in NY personal injury law. Expert analysis from experienced Long Island attorney.
Apr 17, 2009
Objective evidence necessary
Easy Care's 2015 appeal rejected an unexplained medical-necessity opinion. The insurer lost its motion despite inadequate opposition; payment was not awarded.
Jul 21, 2015Was 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 mailing 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.
