Key Takeaway
Court rules that challenging a stamped signature without explaining why it's invalid is insufficient to raise factual issues in no-fault insurance litigation.
Understanding Signature Challenges in No-fault Insurance Cases
In no-fault insurance disputes, healthcare providers often challenge peer review reports by questioning the validity of signatures. However, as this appellate court decision demonstrates, simply pointing out that a signature appears stamped is not enough to invalidate a document. The plaintiff must provide specific reasons why they believe the signature is problematic.
This case highlights the importance of proper procedural compliance in no-fault litigation, where technical defects in documentation can significantly impact case outcomes. Courts require substantive challenges rather than bare assertions when questioning document authenticity.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51230(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the first and third causes of action since plaintiff failed to submit an affirmation from a doctor rebutting the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports (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 ). While plaintiff asserted that Dr. Schechter’s peer review report contained a stamped signature and, as a result, the peer review report was inadmissible, that assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped facsimile signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 27 Misc 3d 128, 2010 NY Slip Op 50587 “
Key Takeaway
Healthcare providers challenging peer review reports cannot rely on conclusory statements about stamped signatures. Courts require specific factual allegations explaining why a signature should be considered invalid. This decision reinforces that signature authenticity challenges must be supported by concrete evidence rather than speculation.
