Key Takeaway
Court ruling demonstrates that a treating physician's letter of medical necessity can create sufficient factual disputes to defeat summary judgment in no-fault insurance cases.
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.
Understanding Medical Necessity in No-Fault Insurance Disputes
In New York no-fault insurance law, one of the most contentious battlegrounds involves disputes over medical necessity. Insurance carriers frequently deny claims by arguing that requested treatments, tests, or procedures are not medically necessary. However, healthcare providers have powerful tools at their disposal to challenge these denials, and understanding what constitutes sufficient evidence can make the difference between victory and defeat in litigation.
The Complete Radiology, P.C. v GEICO case illustrates a fundamental principle: courts will not grant summary judgment when genuine factual disputes exist regarding medical necessity. This particular ruling emerged from the Appellate Term, Second Department, and provides valuable guidance for medical providers navigating no-fault insurance disputes.
When insurance companies file motions for summary judgment, they typically rely on peer review reports or independent medical examinations to support their position that services were not medically necessary. However, providers can successfully counter these motions by presenting compelling medical evidence, even in seemingly straightforward formats like letters of medical necessity.
This case demonstrates that courts recognize the expertise of treating physicians and will give appropriate weight to their professional medical opinions when determining whether disputed facts exist. The ruling reinforces that medical necessity disputes often cannot be resolved as a matter of law and must proceed to trial where factfinders can evaluate competing medical opinions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Complete Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50419(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“the affirmed letter of medical necessity submitted by plaintiff’s assignor’s treating physician was sufficient to demonstrate that there is a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity”
See the buzz words.
Key Takeaway
The court’s emphasis on the treating physician relationship cannot be overstated. Unlike independent medical examiners or peer reviewers who may never have examined the patient, treating physicians possess intimate knowledge of the patient’s condition, medical history, and response to treatment. Their professional opinions carry significant weight in establishing factual disputes that preclude summary judgment.
For healthcare providers facing medical necessity denials, this case reinforces that well-crafted letters from treating physicians can be powerful litigation tools. While insurance carriers may present peer review reports to support their denials, treating physicians’ letters create competing narratives that courts must allow juries to resolve. This protection extends to various medical facilities, including MRI centers facing necessity challenges.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments, including updates to medical necessity standards, peer review procedures, and summary judgment practice requirements. The fee schedules and procedural rules governing medical necessity disputes may have been modified through regulatory changes and court decisions. Practitioners should verify current provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent Appellate Term decisions when handling medical necessity challenges.
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
“All in one” debacle is not good law
Donoso v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp challenges the "All in One" case law on medical necessity in no-fault insurance claims, showing poor precedent.
Sep 9, 2014
Affidavit deemed insufficient under a Pan Chiro analysis
Court finds physician's affidavit insufficient under Pan Chiro standards, raising questions about evolving requirements for medical necessity evidence in no-fault cases.
May 5, 2012
A poorly drafted affidavit of merit fails to defeat my summary judgment motion
Jason Tenenbaum successfully defeats plaintiff's medical necessity opposition with verbose but inadequate affidavit in Prime Psychological Services case.
Apr 11, 2010
MUA trial victory
MUA trial victory shows how manipulation under anesthesia medical necessity disputes are resolved through expert testimony battles in New York no-fault cases.
Jul 7, 2018Common 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.
