Key Takeaway
Shahid Mian v Interboro: why the operating surgeon's unsupported causal opinion did not defeat summary judgment on assigned no-fault benefits.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 178 published articles analyzing causation 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.
An operating surgeon still had to explain his causal opinion in Shahid Mian v Interboro. His single-sentence conclusion left the insurer’s contrary medical findings unanswered.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: This 2013 assigned-benefits decision turned on the unsupported causal opinion; CPLR 3212(b) supplies the summary-judgment framework, while the first-party-benefits definition in Insurance Law 5102(b) is distinct from the tort serious-injury threshold.
What the provider’s affidavit lacked
In Shahid Mian, M.D., P.C. v Interboro Insurance Co., 39 Misc 3d 135(A) (App Term, 1st Dept 2013), the insurer established that the treated condition was not caused by the accident. The provider answered with a single-sentence causal conclusion. On April 16, 2013, the Appellate Term reversed the denial of the insurer’s motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
The patient had assigned the claim for first-party benefits to the provider, not the other way around. This was a medical-bill causation dispute. It was not a finding that treatment was unnecessary, and it did not require the provider to satisfy the tort serious-injury threshold.
Compare the result with Stephen Fealy, linked below. There the surgeon’s original opposition, read with the medical and hospital reports, raised a factual issue. Neither decision supplies a rule that an operating surgeon always wins or always loses. The useful comparison is what the opinion explained and which records supported it.
Insurance Law 5102(b) defines first-party benefits separately from the serious-injury definition in subdivision (d). Keep that distinction when using tort causation cases to analyze a provider’s claim.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2013 litigation recollection follows. His comparison with Fealy and the section 5102(d) discussion records his view at the time; the court’s published holding is summarized above.
This was my case. The defense was based upon a radiological review and a peer review, based upon the radiological review and plaintiff’s medical records. For those that remember Stephen Fealy v. State Farm, the affidavit, in rebuttal in this case, was better than the affidavit in rebuttal case. Note my comment in Amherst Medical Supply, where the court evaluated these cases under a 5102(d) prism.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Stephen Fealy: original opposition sufficient in an assigned-benefits case
- Valentin: unanswered degeneration in the medical records
- Grant: competing MRI-based causal explanations
- Bobbio: missing medical support for aggravation
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
178 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Staged accident and non-payments of premiums
Insurance fraud case reveals challenges with internet policy binding and payment requirements, highlighting need for stronger due diligence in no-fault claims.
Jun 8, 2012
District Court Found That a Detailed Affidavit Was Sufficient to Show That the Vehicle Was Not Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident
Learn how a detailed affidavit successfully proved a vehicle was not involved in a motor vehicle accident in Nassau County District Court.
Jan 9, 2010
Proof of causation
Hernandez v Marcano: renewal restored spine claims, but the unpleaded shoulder claim failed. Read the medical-record distinctions and Jason's note.
Jun 3, 2018
Progressive cannot prove they mailed documents
Progressive insurance company fails to prove proper mailing of claim denials, court finds insufficient evidence of standard office procedures in NY no-fault case.
May 4, 2015Was this article helpful?
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 causation 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.
