Key Takeaway
Court clarifies that IME reports cannot retroactively establish lack of medical necessity for treatments provided before the examination date.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 170 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.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, insurance companies frequently use Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) to challenge the medical necessity of treatments provided to accident victims. These examinations are conducted by doctors chosen by the insurance company to evaluate whether ongoing or proposed treatments are medically warranted. However, a fundamental question arises: can an IME conducted on one date be used to deny coverage for treatments that occurred weeks or months earlier?
This timing issue is crucial for both healthcare providers and patients seeking reimbursement under New York No-Fault Insurance Law. When insurance companies deny claims based on lack of medical necessity, they must provide proper documentation to support their position. The timing of when this documentation is obtained relative to when treatments were provided can significantly impact the outcome of coverage disputes.
The Appellate Term’s decision in Dr. Todd Goldman, D.C., P.C. v Kemper Casualty Insurance Company addresses this temporal relationship and establishes important precedent for medical necessity reversals in no-fault cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Dr. Todd Goldman, D.C., P.C. v Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51296(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“However, as to plaintiff’s claim for $261.60 for services rendered on November 12, 2007, defendant failed to establish a lack of medical necessity for those services, which were rendered before the March 22, 2008 IME.”
Sounds so obvious… an IME is prospective. I think this is the first time I saw a case explicitly say this.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that IME reports are prospective evaluations that cannot retroactively determine the medical necessity of treatments already provided. Insurance companies must have contemporaneous documentation to deny coverage for past services. This principle protects healthcare providers from arbitrary claim denials based on examinations conducted months after treatment, ensuring that a copy of a peer report is all that is needed to establish medical necessity challenges must be timely and relevant to the specific treatment dates in question.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2012, New York’s no-fault regulations and medical necessity determination procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated insurance department guidelines. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding IME timing requirements and medical necessity evaluation standards, as procedural changes or updates to the fee schedule may have affected how temporal relationships between examinations and treatments are assessed in coverage disputes.
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.
170 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
A signifcant knee surgery does not defeat the 5102(d) serious injury threshold
Court rules knee surgery including ACL reconstruction doesn't meet NY serious injury threshold when medical records show full strength and range of motion post-surgery.
Jul 7, 2010
The Future is Bright for Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions in New York
New York medical necessity summary judgment motions are evolving with stricter expert testimony standards, creating opportunities for skilled no-fault insurance attorneys.
Dec 28, 2008
IME cut off not rebutted
Court rules that plaintiff's treating therapist affidavit failed to meaningfully address IME findings, allowing insurance company's treatment denial to stand.
Jun 22, 2015
“Deviation” does not need to be established with medical literature.
Court rules medical experts don't need literature citations to establish treatment deviation in no-fault cases, relying on professional experience instead.
Mar 9, 2013Common 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.
