Pan Chiro sightings

I suspect if there is one case that I won that I never thought would be consistently cited, Pan Chiro would be it.  Pan Chiro involved $300 in CPT testing and a shoddy affidavit of merit from the plaintiff.  Yet, it continues to live on.

My case: 1. Mutual Care Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51734(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“Defendant also submitted, among other things, sworn peer review reports, as well as an affidavit executed by the chiropractor who had performed the peer reviews, which set forth a factual basis [*2]and medical rationale for the conclusions that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. As plaintiff failed to proffer an affidavit from a health care practitioner which meaningfully referred to, let alone rebutted, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495 ), defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted”)

My case: 2. I.V. Med. Supply, Inc. v Mercury Ins. Group, 2010 NY Slip Op 51736(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“Defendant also submitted, among other things, a sworn peer review report, as well as an affidavit executed by the chiropractor who had performed the peer review, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. As plaintiff failed to proffer an affidavit from a health care practitioner which [*2]meaningfully referred to, let alone rebutted, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495 ), defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”).

3. St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51728(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“As the affirmation of plaintiff’s doctor submitted in opposition to the cross motion did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the [*2]conclusions set forth in the peer review report, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment as to this cause of action should have been granted (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137, 2009 NY Slip Op 52321 ; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495 ”)

**

**

Related Articles

• Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
• Effective Peer Review Rebuttals in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• Why Poorly Drafted Medical Affidavits Fail Against Insurance Medical Necessity Motions
• Geico now joins the Mercury and NYCM club in having their medical necesity motions denied based upon boilerplate letters of medical necessity
• 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 peer review procedures, medical necessity standards, and evidentiary requirements for insurance denials. The regulatory framework governing medical opposition affidavits and the sufficiency standards referenced in Pan Chiropractic may have been modified through subsequent Insurance Department regulations and appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law developments when relying on these precedents.