Key Takeaway
Brooklyn Chiropractic v A. Cent. Ins. Co.: Court finds triable issue of fact when plaintiff's IME contradicts insurer's IME, but peer review denial stands unopposed.
Brooklyn Chiropractic & Sports Therapy, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50904(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
(1) “Defendant also submitted an affirmed report of an independent medical examination (IME) with respect to 11 of the 12 claims, and a peer review report with respect to the 12th, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that the services in question were not medically necessary.”
(2) “In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmed report of an IME, conducted by a different doctor one day after the IME performed by defendant’s doctor. The IME report submitted by plaintiff contradicted the findings of defendant’s IME report and was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the 11 claims which had been denied based upon defendant’s IME report”
(3) “However, plaintiff failed to offer any medical evidence to rebut the conclusions of defendant’s peer review report, which established a lack of medical necessity for the 12th claim”
This is similar to Hillcrest v. State Farm, where an IME report defeated the findings of the peer review report. Yet, note how the conflicting IME reports had not effect on the claim that was denied, based upon the peer report.
Related Articles
- Why conclusory affidavits fail in opposing medical necessity summary judgment motions
- Effective strategies for peer review rebuttals in no-fault insurance cases
- How poorly drafted medical affidavits fail against insurance necessity motions
- Understanding when conclusory affidavits are insufficient to defeat lack of medical necessity motions
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2013, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone several amendments affecting IME procedures, peer review standards, and medical necessity determinations. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding IME timing requirements, qualified examiner credentials, and the evidentiary standards for rebutting peer review reports, as procedural and substantive requirements may have been modified.
