Key Takeaway
Three October 2010 decisions applied Pan Chiropractic. Compare deficient medical opposition, attorney-only opposition and separate IME no-show claims.
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.
Pan Chiropractic appeared in three decisions issued October 1, 2010. Reading them together shows what the provider’s opposition lacked—and why one of the cases also requires a separate look at IME nonappearance.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: These 2010 applications of Pan Chiropractic turn on the proof and denial ground for each claim. Read the 2010 decision.
Three applications, not three identical records
Mutual Care Medical Supply v Mercury Casualty, 2010 NY Slip Op 51734(U), granted the insurer’s motion after supported peer reviews were not answered by a medical affidavit engaging with their conclusions.
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.
I.V. Medical Supply v Mercury Insurance Group, 2010 NY Slip Op 51736(U), makes another detail explicit: the provider submitted only its attorney’s affirmation. That did not rebut the insurer’s medical showing.
In St. Vincent Medical Care v Clarendon National, 2010 NY Slip Op 51728(U), the first cause of action involved an inadequate response to a peer review. The other three causes involved failure to attend scheduled IMEs. The court granted dismissal, but those other claims were not decided solely under the medical-necessity rebuttal rule.
Why the distinction matters
Pan Chiropractic, 2009 NY Slip Op 51495(U), is a useful starting point for the evidence comparison. It is not a shortcut for treating every defense, or every cause of action in the same complaint, as interchangeable.
Jason’s original 2010 note
Jason’s original 2010 reaction follows. The amount and account of his participation are preserved historical commentary, not a result promised to another client.
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.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review encyclopedia, then compare these records:
- Alur Medical: an unrebutted equipment review
- Bronze Acupuncture: disagreement without supporting facts
- Innovative Chiropractic: different results for two claims
- B.Y., M.D.: an incomplete opposing affirmation
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.
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
NY No-Fault: When Treating Doctors Must Challenge IME Medical Necessity Findings
Learn when treating doctors must meaningfully disagree with IME findings in NY no-fault cases.
Nov 17, 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
What’s a boy to do?
Promed's 2013 equipment ruling split two claims and invited submissions on possible sanctions. The decision did not itself impose those sanctions.
Aug 27, 2013
I wish I had the record and the briefs on this one
Expert analysis of medical necessity defenses in NY no-fault cases. Learn how peer review reports affect insurance claims.
Mar 3, 2011Was 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.
