And why do you think the signature was stamped?

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.

Legal Significance

The Alev Medical Supply decision establishes a crucial evidentiary standard for challenging document authenticity in no-fault litigation. The court’s holding reflects the broader principle that parties cannot defeat summary judgment motions through unsupported allegations. Under New York law, a party opposing summary judgment must produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact—not merely speculative claims or conclusory assertions.

The decision implicitly recognizes several important procedural realities. First, forensic document examination is a specialized field requiring expert qualifications. Courts will not accept lay opinion testimony on technical matters like signature authentication, which involves analyzing pressure patterns, ink characteristics, stroke consistency, and other factors beyond ordinary observation. Second, the ruling reinforces that the burden of proof rests on the party challenging admissibility—here, the plaintiff seeking payment must affirmatively demonstrate why the peer review report should be excluded, rather than forcing the defendant to prove authenticity.

This case also highlights strategic considerations in peer review challenges. Rather than making bare allegations about stamped signatures, providers should consider obtaining affidavits from qualified forensic document examiners who can testify about specific characteristics indicating mechanical reproduction versus handwritten signatures.

Practical Implications

For healthcare providers contesting peer review reports, this decision demonstrates the inadequacy of superficial challenges. If a provider suspects a peer review signature is stamped or otherwise inauthentic, they must retain a qualified forensic document examiner to analyze the original document and provide expert testimony. This requires obtaining the actual peer review report (not a photocopy), examining it under appropriate conditions, and having the expert prepare a detailed affidavit explaining the methodology and conclusions.

Insurance companies benefit from understanding that their peer review reports will withstand challenge unless plaintiffs present substantial expert evidence. However, this should not create complacency—insurers should ensure their peer reviewers properly sign reports with original signatures to avoid creating unnecessary vulnerabilities.

The decision also serves as a reminder about discovery strategy. Providers challenging peer review authenticity should serve targeted discovery requests seeking the original peer review report, information about the reviewer’s signing practices, and any policies regarding document execution to build a foundation for expert analysis.

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.

Related Articles

• The failure to assert why the signature was stamped will not invalidate an affirmation
• A copy of a peer report is all that is needed
• Medical necessity – rebutting a peer review