Key Takeaway
Radiology Today v Travelers distinguishes conclusory testimony at trial from medical proof on a summary-judgment motion.
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.
A witness can take the stand and still leave the insurer’s medical-necessity defense unproved. Radiology Today v Travelers turned on what the expert actually explained, not simply whether the provider called a competing doctor.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Radiology Today concerns proof at a nonjury trial; it does not make motion-paper and trial-evidence rules interchangeable. Read the 2013 decision.
Testimony without the medical explanation
In Radiology Today, P.C. v Travelers Insurance Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50849(U), decided May 14, 2013, the nonjury trial concerned only medical necessity. The insurer’s expert identified her peer review but gave a conclusory opinion that the radiology services were unnecessary.
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 report was admitted only to show that the witness prepared it, not for its substantive contents. Her testimony did not supply the factual basis or medical rationale needed for the defense. The Appellate Term affirmed the provider’s judgment under the fair-interpretation-of-the-evidence standard.
Keep the procedural setting visible
This trial ruling does not erase the use of properly supported medical submissions on a summary-judgment motion. It also does not decide whether a substitute expert is categorically barred. The linked Bajaj note addresses that separate question and shows why admissibility and persuasive proof must be considered separately.
Jason’s original 2013 note
Jason’s original 2013 question follows. It challenges the insurer’s proof in this record; it is not advice to omit a treating witness in another trial.
So why bring the treating doctor to court?
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review encyclopedia, then compare these records:
- Bajaj: substitute testimony and the ultimate verdict
- Brooklyn Chiropractic: separate IME and peer-review claims
- Ocean Diagnostic: medical proof the insurer did not answer
- Five Boro: missing report pages and sufficient opposition
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the relevant reports and motion papers.
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
Mollo's 2020 MUA ruling turned on competing expert testimony. Read the actual trial result without treating an expert's safety concerns as a universal rule.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
DRD Medical defeated the insurer's motion in 2020. Compare the court's finding of a factual dispute with Jason's original criticism of the affidavit.
Apr 27, 2020
More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report
Three recent no-fault insurance cases demonstrate how plaintiffs consistently fail to provide adequate medical expert testimony to rebut insurance carriers' utilization reports.
Nov 27, 2010
Conclusory affidavits will not defeat an insurance carrier's summary judgment motion
Bronze Acupuncture rejected unsupported disagreement with an IME. Compare Park Slope without treating Jason's prediction as an overruling.
Jun 18, 2009
Unsworn Letters Not Enough: Why Medical Necessity Rebuttals Must Be Sworn and Signed
Innovative MR Imaging rejected unsigned, unsworn opposition in 2015. Separate that Second Department ruling from today's CPLR 2106 affirmation rules.
Oct 6, 2015
A Prima facie showing of lack of serious injury does not require a review of plaintiff’s records
New York court ruling confirms insurance medical experts don't need to review all plaintiff records to establish prima facie case for lack of serious injury.
Jun 20, 2013Was 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 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.
