Key Takeaway
Court rejects challenge to peer review report based solely on claim of stamped signature, emphasizing need for expert proof in no-fault insurance disputes.
In no-fault insurance litigation, peer review reports serve as critical evidence for insurance companies defending against medical claims. These reports, prepared by medical professionals to evaluate the necessity and reasonableness of treatment, often face challenges from plaintiffs who question their authenticity or admissibility. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates how courts handle such challenges when they lack proper evidentiary support.
The case of Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. illustrates a fundamental principle in evidence law: mere allegations without substantiation carry little weight in court proceedings. When challenging the admissibility of crucial documents like peer review reports, parties must provide concrete evidence to support their claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Plaintiff’s only argument, both before the Civil Court and on appeal, is that the peer review report relied upon by defendant contained a stamped signature and, as a result, it was inadmissible. We find that plaintiff’s assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 127, 2011 NY Slip Op 51230 ).”
If Plaintiff was serious about this argument, they would have presented an affidavit from an appropriate expert explaining how they came to the conclusion that the signature was stamped. As is always the case, this was not done here.
Key Takeaway
Courts require more than speculation when challenging the authenticity of peer review reports in no-fault cases. As this decision shows, plaintiffs must present expert testimony or other concrete evidence explaining the basis for their claims about document authenticity. Similar evidentiary standards apply to other business records and peer review reports used in insurance litigation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations under Insurance Law Section 5102 have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding peer review procedures, electronic signature standards, and medical documentation requirements. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding signature authentication standards and peer review report admissibility under the most recent regulatory framework.
