Key Takeaway
Court decisions show consistent pattern: medical providers failing to submit proper affidavits of merit in medical necessity challenges will almost certainly lose at appellate level.
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.
Medical necessity challenges represent one of the most common battlegrounds in New York no-fault insurance litigation. When insurance companies dispute whether medical services were truly necessary, they often file motions for summary judgment claiming the treatments weren’t medically justified. For healthcare providers seeking reimbursement, the response strategy can make or break their case.
The pattern emerging from appellate courts has become remarkably consistent across multiple judicial departments. Healthcare providers who fail to submit proper affidavits of merit when responding to medical necessity challenges find themselves facing almost certain defeat. This trend reflects the courts’ emphasis on substantive medical evidence rather than procedural arguments alone.
Understanding this judicial landscape is crucial for medical providers navigating the complex world of New York no-fault insurance law. The appellate courts have established clear expectations for how these disputes should be handled.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52061(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
Dynamic Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52062(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
I know the above heading looks like some secret code that is necessary to enter a gambling hall. But it is important to understand that a plaintiff will almost always succumb to a defendant’s medical necessity motion, at both divisions of the Appellate Term, Second Department, when that plaintiff fails to answer a medical necessity motion with a proper affidavit of merit.
As such, I would look at each unrebutted motion for summary judgment based upon the lack of medical necessity of a particular service that you might have lost in District Nassau and file a Notice of Appeal. As long as your mailing is in place, I suspect the respective orders of the District Court will be reversed.
Key Takeaway
The appellate courts consistently reverse district court decisions favoring insurance companies when medical providers failed to submit proper affidavits of merit. This creates opportunities for medical necessity reversals on appeal, provided the procedural requirements for filing notices of appeal are met. Healthcare providers should carefully evaluate whether their lost cases qualify for appellate review.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 analysis of appellate court trends regarding medical necessity challenges, New York no-fault regulations have undergone significant revisions, including updates to fee schedules under Insurance Regulation 68, amendments to claim filing procedures, and modifications to evidentiary standards for medical necessity disputes. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions, as the judicial landscape for handling medical necessity challenges and affidavit requirements may have evolved considerably.
Related Articles
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
Court finds MUA treatment too aggressive without proper foundation. Expert testimony on medical necessity prevails in no-fault insurance dispute.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
New York court finds conflicting medical opinions create triable issue on physical therapy necessity, despite provider's weak affidavit of merit in no-fault insurance case.
Apr 27, 2020
Witness Credibility in Personal Injury Cases: Standards for Medical and Expert Testimony in New York
Understanding witness credibility standards in NY personal injury law. Expert analysis of medical testimony, expert witnesses & courtroom credibility. Call 516-750-0595.
Apr 10, 2019
Mailing and the first time “objective” has landed in a medical rational case
Court ruling establishes "objective medical explanation" requirement for no-fault insurance medical necessity defenses and highlights proper mailing procedure standards.
Dec 23, 2014
The substitute peer doctor
Nassau District Court ruling in Bajaj v GEICO clarifies when substitute peer doctors can testify in no-fault medical necessity cases, overturning restrictive precedent.
Jun 23, 2012
A $4,300 affidavit- and another Pan Chiro citing (or sighting)
Court reverses $4,300 judgment due to insufficient medical affidavit that failed to address insurer's peer review determination in no-fault case.
May 23, 2010Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a medical necessity denial in no-fault insurance?
A medical necessity denial occurs when the insurer's peer reviewer determines that treatment was not medically necessary based on a review of the patient's medical records. The peer reviewer writes a report explaining why the treatment does not meet the standard of medical necessity. To challenge this denial, the provider or claimant must present medical evidence — typically an affirmation from the treating physician — explaining why the treatment was necessary and rebutting the peer review findings.
How do you challenge a peer review denial?
To overcome a peer review denial, you typically need an affirmation or affidavit from the treating physician that specifically addresses and rebuts the peer reviewer's findings. The treating physician must explain the medical rationale for the treatment, reference the patient's clinical findings, and demonstrate why the peer reviewer's conclusions were incorrect. Generic or conclusory statements are insufficient — the response must be detailed and fact-specific.
What criteria determine medical necessity for no-fault treatment in New York?
Medical necessity is evaluated based on whether the treatment is appropriate for the patient's diagnosed condition, consistent with accepted medical standards, and not primarily for the convenience of the patient or provider. Peer reviewers assess factors including clinical findings, diagnostic test results, treatment plan consistency with the diagnosis, and whether the patient is showing functional improvement. Treatment that is excessive, experimental, or unsupported by objective findings may be deemed not medically necessary.
Can an insurer cut off no-fault benefits based on one IME?
Yes, an insurer can discontinue benefits after a single IME doctor concludes that further treatment is not medically necessary or that the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. However, the IME report must be sufficiently detailed and the denial must be issued within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c). The treating physician can submit a rebuttal affirmation explaining why continued treatment is necessary, forming the basis for challenging the cut-off at arbitration.
What is a peer review in no-fault insurance?
A peer review is a paper-based evaluation where a licensed medical professional reviews the patient's records and renders an opinion on whether the billed treatment was medically necessary. Unlike an IME, the peer reviewer does not examine the patient. The peer review report must be detailed, address the specific treatment at issue, and explain the medical rationale for the opinion. Generic or boilerplate peer reviews that fail to address the patient's individual clinical presentation may be found insufficient.
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 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.
