Medical Necessity in No-Fault Insurance: Understanding the First Department’s Victory for Insurance Carriers

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Medical Necessity in No-Fault Insurance: Understanding the First Department’s Victory for Insurance Carriers

In the evolving landscape of New York no-fault insurance law, medical necessity determinations have become increasingly critical for both healthcare providers and insurance carriers. The December 30, 2010 decision in Enko Enterprises International, Inc. v Clarendon National Insurance Co. represents a significant victory for insurance carriers, providing clear guidance on how medical necessity challenges can successfully defeat claims for medical supplies and equipment.

For healthcare providers throughout Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx who supply medical equipment and supplies under no-fault insurance coverage, understanding how courts evaluate medical necessity is essential to avoiding costly claim denials. At the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, we’ve been closely monitoring these developments and helping healthcare providers address the complex requirements for proving medical necessity in no-fault cases.

The Enko Decision: A Medical Necessity Victory for Carriers

Enko Enters. Intl., Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52267(U) (App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)

Defendant demonstrated, through the affirmed peer review report of a physician, that the medical supplies plaintiff-provider afforded to its assignor were not medically necessary (see generally CPT Medical Services, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 ). In this connection, we note that the physician opined that the medical supplies were not medically necessary because the assignor was already receiving both physical and chiropractic therapy for his injuries, treatment that the physician concluded was sufficient under the circumstances. In opposition, plaintiff, which did not submit any evidence regarding the medical necessity of the supplies, failed to raise a triable issue.”

Not only do we have a victory from the carrier on a medical necessity summary judgment case since CPT -but we have a medical rationale that has prima facie proven the supplies to lack medical utility. Not bad.

Understanding Medical Necessity in New York No-Fault Law

The Enko decision applied the summary-judgment standard to a particular medical-supplies claim. For medical equipment suppliers, durable medical equipment (DME) providers, and other healthcare practitioners serving patients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City, this ruling has important implications for how they document and justify the medical supplies they provide.

The Legal Standard for Medical Necessity

For a practical medical review, consider the following questions. They are not a statutory test announced in Enko:

• Appropriate: The service must be suitable for the patient’s condition and diagnosis
• Necessary: The service must be required for the patient’s medical condition
• Reasonable: The service must be consistent with generally accepted medical standards
• Relationship to existing care: Explain the disputed supply’s purpose when other treatment is already being provided

The Enko Analysis: Duplication and Sufficiency

The Enko decision is particularly significant because it establishes that medical supplies can be deemed unnecessary when the patient is already receiving adequate treatment through other modalities. The court’s analysis focused on the concept of treatment sufficiency rather than absolute contraindication.

The key finding in Enko was that the physician reviewers concluded the assignor was “already receiving both physical and chiropractic therapy for his injuries, treatment that the physician concluded was sufficient under the circumstances.” This reasoning suggests that courts will look at the totality of care being provided rather than evaluating each service in isolation.

Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers

For healthcare providers throughout the New York metropolitan area, the Enko decision creates new challenges in establishing medical necessity for supplies and equipment, particularly when patients are receiving multiple forms of treatment.

Documentation Requirements

Following the Enko decision, healthcare providers should enhance their documentation practices to include:

Comprehensive Medical Justification: Detailed explanations of why specific supplies or equipment are necessary despite other ongoing treatments.

Treatment Coordination: Clear documentation showing how supplied equipment complements rather than duplicates other therapies.

Clinical Rationale: Specific medical reasons why existing treatment is insufficient without the additional supplies.

Objective Measurements: Quantifiable data showing the need for additional interventions beyond current therapy.

The Burden of Proof Evolution

In Enko, the insurer’s physician supplied the medical reasoning for the motion. The provider then had to raise a triable issue; merely pointing to an outstanding bill did not answer that opinion.

This shift has several implications for providers throughout Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Westchester County:

Proactive Evidence Gathering: Providers must anticipate challenges and gather supporting evidence before claims are denied.

Expert Medical Support: Having qualified medical professionals who can testify to necessity becomes more critical.

Comprehensive Treatment Planning: Providers must demonstrate how their services fit into the overall treatment plan.

The Peer Review Process and Medical Necessity

The Enko decision highlights the critical role of peer review in medical necessity determinations. The insurance carrier successfully used an “affirmed peer review report of a physician” to establish that the medical supplies lacked necessity.

Understanding Peer Review Standards

Peer reviews in no-fault cases typically involve qualified physicians reviewing treatment records and making determinations about medical necessity. The Enko case demonstrates that these reviews can be successful when they provide specific medical reasoning for their conclusions.

Key elements of effective peer reviews include:

• Review by appropriately qualified medical professionals
• Consideration of all relevant medical records and treatment history
• Specific analysis of why proposed treatment is unnecessary
• Reference to accepted medical standards and guidelines
• Clear explanation of the medical reasoning behind the determination

Challenging Peer Review Determinations

For healthcare providers facing peer review determinations, the Enko case underscores the importance of mounting effective challenges. Providers should consider:

Expert Rebuttal: Obtaining contradictory opinions from equally qualified medical professionals who can explain why the supplies are medically necessary.

Clinical Evidence: Presenting objective evidence showing the inadequacy of existing treatment modalities.

Treatment Outcomes: Demonstrating improved patient outcomes when the disputed supplies are provided.

Standard of Care: Showing that providing the supplies is consistent with accepted medical practice in the relevant specialty.

Medical Supplies vs. Treatment Services

The Enko decision specifically addressed medical supplies rather than active treatment services, which creates important distinctions for providers to understand.

Supplies and Equipment Considerations

Medical supplies and durable medical equipment face unique challenges in establishing necessity:

Passive vs. Active Treatment: Supplies often provide passive support while therapies provide active intervention, making it easier to argue duplication.

Medical comparison: Address the reviewer’s stated reason for finding the existing therapy sufficient in the particular case.

Usage Documentation: Providers must document actual usage and benefit from supplied equipment.

Alternatives: If a reviewer identifies another treatment, respond to the medical basis for that comparison. Enko does not impose a cheapest-option requirement.

Integration with Active Treatment

The Enko reasoning suggests that medical supplies are most vulnerable when they appear to duplicate the benefits of active treatment. Providers should focus on demonstrating how supplies enhance or enable other treatments rather than merely supplement them.

Impact on Different Provider Categories

The Enko decision affects different types of healthcare providers in various ways:

Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Suppliers

DME providers throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City must now:

• Document how equipment addresses specific functional limitations not resolved by therapy
• Show how equipment enables or enhances the effectiveness of other treatments
• Provide objective measures of patient need that therapy alone cannot address
• Demonstrate compliance monitoring and outcome tracking

Medical Supply Companies

Companies providing medical supplies must enhance their documentation to show:

• Specific medical conditions requiring the supplies
• How supplies address needs not met by active treatment
• Clinical evidence supporting the necessity of specific supplies
• Coordination with treating physicians to establish medical necessity

Litigation Strategy After Enko

Enko illustrates a supplies claim resolved on an unrebutted medical opinion.

For Healthcare Providers

Providers facing medical necessity challenges should:

Develop Comprehensive Records: Create detailed documentation showing the specific medical need for supplies beyond existing treatment.

Coordinate Care Documentation: Ensure treating physicians document the necessity for additional supplies in their treatment notes.

Gather Expert Support: Identify medical experts who can explain why supplies are necessary despite other ongoing treatments.

Document Outcomes: Track and document improved patient outcomes when disputed supplies are provided.

For Insurance Companies

The Enko decision provides insurance carriers with a roadmap for successful medical necessity challenges:

Comprehensive Peer Review: Ensure peer reviewers consider all aspects of the patient’s treatment plan.

Specific Medical Reasoning: Require peer reviewers to provide detailed medical justification for their determinations.

Treatment Duplication Analysis: Focus on whether existing treatment already addresses the medical needs targeted by disputed supplies.

Scope of the opinion: Limit the review to reasons supported by the record; the published decision does not announce a general cost-effectiveness defense.

The Broader Context: First Department Trends

Use this decision for its stated evidentiary reasoning. The following considerations are practical review questions, not findings about a broader judicial trend.

Increased Scrutiny of Supply Claims

Enko concerned supplies prescribed while physical and chiropractic treatment was underway. That factual overlap made the purpose of the supplies material to the motion; one decision does not establish a trend across all supply claims.

Focus on Treatment Integration

The Enko reasoning emphasizes the importance of viewing treatment as an integrated whole rather than separate components. Providers must demonstrate how their services fit into comprehensive treatment plans.

Economic Considerations

The opinion does not state an economic-policy rationale. Its explanation is the physician’s assessment of the treatment already provided and the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Protecting Your Practice in Medical Necessity Disputes

Whether you’re a DME supplier dealing with equipment denials or a medical provider whose necessity determinations are being challenged, understanding the evolving standards established by decisions like Enko is essential to protecting your practice and ensuring appropriate patient care.

The Enko decision represents just one component of an increasingly complex framework of no-fault insurance law in New York. For healthcare providers serving patients throughout Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and surrounding areas, staying informed about these legal developments can mean the difference between successful claim recovery and financial losses.

Expert Legal Representation for Medical Necessity Disputes

Navigating medical necessity challenges in New York’s no-fault insurance system requires experienced legal counsel who understands both the medical and legal aspects of these complex cases. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has extensive experience representing healthcare providers in medical necessity disputes throughout Long Island and the greater New York City area.

Our comprehensive understanding of decisions like Enko and their implications for different types of healthcare providers allows us to develop effective strategies for both establishing medical necessity and defending against improper denials. We understand how to present compelling medical evidence, challenge inadequate peer reviews, and advocate for appropriate patient care within the no-fault system.

From our offices serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Westchester County, we provide experienced representation for:

• Durable medical equipment suppliers facing necessity challenges
• Medical supply companies dealing with systematic claim denials
• Healthcare providers whose treatment decisions are being questioned
• Medical practices navigating complex no-fault insurance requirements
• Patients whose medically necessary supplies have been inappropriately denied

Don’t Let Medical Necessity Challenges Undermine Patient Care

The victory for insurance carriers in the Enko case serves as a reminder that New York’s no-fault insurance laws continue to evolve in ways that can significantly impact healthcare providers and patient access to necessary medical supplies. Whether you’re facing a specific medical necessity challenge or need to strengthen your documentation practices to prevent future denials, having experienced legal counsel can make the critical difference.

Understanding the nuances of medical necessity determinations, peer review challenges, and the integration of treatment modalities requires both medical knowledge and legal expertise. Don’t allow inadequate legal representation to compromise your practice or your patients’ access to medically necessary supplies and equipment.

Contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum today at 516-750-0595 for experienced representation in your medical necessity dispute. Protect your practice and ensure your patients receive the medical supplies they need.

Call 516-750-0595 now to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you navigate New York’s complex medical necessity requirements and defend against inappropriate insurance carrier challenges.

Read Enko as a decision about this evidentiary record

Enko was decided on December 30, 2010. The January 2011 date belongs to this blog note. The appeal came from the Bronx Civil Court and was decided by the Appellate Term, First Department. Keep that court designation when describing its precedential weight; this was not an Appellate Division ruling announcing a statewide equipment ban.

The published opinion is short. It reports a physician’s conclusion that the physical and chiropractic treatment already being provided was sufficient under the circumstances. The provider submitted no evidence addressing the medical necessity of the supplies. That combination explains the result. The opinion does not publish a cost comparison, prescribe a mandatory outcomes study, or identify a cheaper substitute that every supplier must use.

Preparing a response to a duplication argument

A useful response starts with the particular need the disputed supply was intended to address. If a reviewer says existing treatment already meets that need, the responding clinician should explain any difference using the patient’s actual record. Counsel should not supply a medical explanation the clinician has never made.

A practical review can ask whether or not the report considered your prescription as well as the relevant treatment notes that were presented to them. And if their answer relies upon some limitation that is not present in those records given to the reviewer, find out what record supports that and make sure you understand why it’s significant. But if there is no supporting evidence, signing a letter that is conclusory will not make it so.

This is an evidence-development approach, not a holding that Enko requires four mandatory categories of documents. The distinction matters because the existing treatment may be sufficient in one patient’s circumstances and insufficient in another’s. The published decision does not decide the second patient’s claim.

Connect the successful motion to the failed motions

The contrast with Amherst Medical Supply is useful: the insurer there offered an inadequately explained opinion, while the provider described the conditions and intended benefits of the prescribed goods. Park Slope v GEICO reached another result because competing medical evidence created a trial issue. These cases let a reader compare actual reasons for success and failure rather than assume a trend favors one side.

Historical note: Enko applied summary judgment to an unrebutted medical showing in a specific supplies claim; it did not enact a new cost-effectiveness test. The current procedural framework is CPLR 3212(b).

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the medical-necessity and peer-review hub. Use these related notes to compare the initial showing, the response and the result:

• High Quality: an inadequate rebuttal
• Two medical-necessity reversals and trial-limiting findings
• GZ Medical: medical opposition and missing discovery
• Exclusive: the successful motion and its limits

For help assessing a pending claim or motion, contact the firm with the denial, medical reports, motion papers and any court order. This historical discussion is general information, not advice on a particular file.