Key Takeaway
Analysis of Active Imaging v Progressive case where Appellate Term rejected challenge to medical necessity motion based on peer report without underlying medical records.
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 308 published articles analyzing evidence 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.
Active Imaging, P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co, 2010 NY Slip Op 51842(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
The Appellate Term, Second Department rejected a plaintiff’s challenge to a lack of medical necessity motion, based upon a peer report – without the medicals that were relied upon – because “these reports and records are not part of defendant’s prima facie showing.”
As a fail safe, the court said that: “pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), a court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment or order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or disclosure to be had, if facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated.”
I hate to say this, and I feel some defense guys probably will not be happy with what I am going to say, but I will say it anyway, because this is is my blog and I try to do the right thing. I think this decision is wrong. An opinion based upon medical records (whether hearsay or not hearsay) should contain the relied upon medical records. The Second Department said this in a case you can find on this blog.
Now, I do not feel the same way about IME cut off cases, because unlike Judge Hirsch, I believe that a finding of lack of disability or something that implies (but does not say) “medical maximum improvement” prima facie establishes a lack of medical necessity for post IME services, supplies, etc. Thus, the lack of inclusion of medical records on an IME cut-off case, generally, should not impact an insurance carrier’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
I believe the Appellate Division may grant leave on this case, for the simple reason that a decision like this could be disastrous in medical malpractice and bodily injury litigation, under the right fact scenario.
Finally, the “3212(f)” remedy is a cop out in my mind, and probably an admission this decision does not rest on solid footing. My advice to the plaintiff’s bar is to be careful before you file Notices of Trial in the Second Department.
So yes, this blog is fair and balanced, at least in my mind.
Related Articles
- Civil Court’s flawed reasoning in no-fault insurance evidence disputes
- How medical experts establish competency to testify on standard of care
- Peer doctor testimony establishing prima facie lack of medical necessity
- Expert affirmations sufficient to defeat summary judgment in malpractice cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and court precedents regarding peer review documentation requirements may have evolved, particularly concerning what constitutes adequate prima facie showing for medical necessity denials. Practitioners should verify current procedural requirements under Insurance Law Article 51 and recent Appellate Division rulings regarding the sufficiency of peer review reports and supporting documentation.
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
Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation
The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.
308 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026Expert Witness in Car Accident Lawsuits
Learn how expert witnesses in New York car accident lawsuits help establish fault, causation, and damages through accident reconstruction, medical testimony, and economic analysis.
May 14, 2025Abusive summation and cross-examination causes this case to go back to trial
Court reverses personal injury verdict due to attorney's abusive summation and improper cross-examination tactics that denigrated medical experts and witnesses.
Mar 2, 2012Effective Peer Review Rebuttals in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Learn how to craft effective peer review rebuttals in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert legal analysis from experienced Long Island personal injury attorney.
Mar 18, 2010Why “contemporaneous” medical inquiry should not be the loadstar of medical necessity determinations
Court ruling demonstrates that medical conditions can evolve over time, challenging the emphasis on immediate post-accident medical examinations in necessity determinations.
Jun 8, 2018PF-NCS – a thought
Long Island no-fault attorney discusses PF-NCT testing defenses including fraud, coding disputes, and EMG/NCV overlap in medical necessity cases.
Oct 14, 2014Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of evidence are important in no-fault and personal injury cases?
Key types of evidence include medical records and bills, police accident reports, diagnostic imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT scans), expert medical opinions, business records from insurance companies and providers, witness statements, photographs of injuries and the accident scene, and employment records for lost wage claims. The rules of evidence under New York CPLR and the Evidence Rules govern what is admissible in court proceedings.
What is the business records exception to hearsay in New York?
Under CPLR 4518(a), a business record is admissible if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such a record, and the record was made at or near the time of the event recorded. This exception is crucial in no-fault litigation because insurers' denial letters, claim logs, and peer review reports are often offered as business records. The foundation for the business record must be established through testimony or a certification.
What role does diagnostic imaging play as evidence in injury cases?
Diagnostic imaging — MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, and EMG/NCV studies — provides objective evidence of injuries such as herniated discs, fractures, ligament tears, and nerve damage. Courts and arbitrators give significant weight to imaging evidence because it is less subjective than physical examination findings. In serious injury threshold cases under §5102(d), imaging evidence corroborating clinical findings strengthens the plaintiff's case considerably.
How do New York courts handle surveillance evidence in personal injury cases?
Insurance companies frequently hire investigators to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs to challenge injury claims. Under CPLR 3101(i), a party must disclose surveillance materials prior to trial, including films, photographs, and videotapes. Surveillance evidence can be powerful for impeachment if it contradicts the plaintiff's testimony about limitations. However, courts may preclude surveillance that was not properly disclosed or that is misleadingly edited.
How are expert witnesses used in New York personal injury cases?
Expert witnesses provide specialized opinion testimony that helps the court or jury understand complex issues like medical causation, injury severity, future care needs, economic losses, and engineering defects. Under New York law, expert testimony must be based on facts in evidence, the expert's professional knowledge, or a combination of both. The expert must be qualified by training, education, or experience in the relevant field. Expert disclosure requirements under CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) require parties to identify their experts and provide detailed summaries before trial.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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 evidence 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.