Key Takeaway
Hunt City Chiropractic case shows conflicting medical expert opinions can create triable issues of fact on medical necessity in no-fault insurance disputes.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 171 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.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, one of the most contentious battlegrounds involves disputes over medical necessity. Insurance companies frequently challenge the medical necessity of treatments through Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) and peer reviews, while healthcare providers must defend their treatment decisions with compelling medical evidence.
The concept of a “triable issue of fact” becomes crucial when courts must determine whether conflicting medical opinions warrant a trial rather than summary judgment. When medical experts present opposing views on treatment necessity, courts often find that these disputes involve questions of fact that cannot be resolved without a full trial. This principle protects healthcare providers from having their claims dismissed prematurely when there’s legitimate medical disagreement.
Medical necessity determinations are particularly complex in chiropractic care cases, where treatment protocols may extend over longer periods. The timing of treatment relative to IME examinations often becomes a focal point, especially when providers continue treatment after an IME recommends discontinuation. Understanding how courts handle medical necessity reversals and the standards for supporting medical evidence is essential for practitioners navigating these disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Hunt City Chiropractic, LLP v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
“We agree that the conflicting medical expert opinions adduced by the parties sufficed to raise a triable issue as to the medical necessity of the chiropractic services underlying plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claim.”
This appear to be a post-IME cut off case. I am curious if the affidavit discussed the treatment at issue, and whether there was supporting medical evidence to substantiate the medical appropriateness of the post-IME services. Compare, Utica Acupuncture v. Interboro
Key Takeaway
The Hunt City Chiropractic decision demonstrates that when both parties present conflicting medical expert opinions, courts will typically find a triable issue of fact exists regarding medical necessity. This prevents insurance companies from obtaining summary judgment solely based on their own medical experts’ opinions when the healthcare provider presents competing medical evidence. The case highlights the importance of having strong medical documentation and expert testimony to counter insurance company challenges, particularly in post-IME treatment scenarios where sufficient medical opposition becomes critical.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments affecting medical necessity determinations, including updates to IME procedures and peer review standards. Additionally, fee schedule revisions and changes to documentation requirements may impact how triable issues of fact are evaluated in medical necessity disputes. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when handling medical necessity challenges.
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.
171 published articles in Medical Necessity
Keep Reading
More Medical Necessity Analysis
MUA is dangerous
Court finds MUA treatment too aggressive without proper foundation. Expert testimony on medical necessity prevails in no-fault insurance dispute.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
New York court finds conflicting medical opinions create triable issue on physical therapy necessity, despite provider's weak affidavit of merit in no-fault insurance case.
Apr 27, 2020
Appellate Term Second Department expounds on sufficient medical rationale in DME case
Appellate Term Second Department ruling clarifies medical rationale requirements in DME cases, emphasizing need for meaningful opposition to peer review reports.
May 16, 2013
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
Learn how conclusory affidavits fail to defeat insurance carriers' summary judgment motions in NY no-fault cases. Bronze Acupuncture v Mercury shows what works.
Jun 18, 2009
3212(f) – motion denied
Court denies insurer's summary judgment motion after defendant's late discovery responses prevent plaintiff from responding to medical necessity challenge.
Aug 24, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a medical necessity denial in no-fault insurance?
A medical necessity denial occurs when the insurer's peer reviewer determines that treatment was not medically necessary based on a review of the patient's medical records. The peer reviewer writes a report explaining why the treatment does not meet the standard of medical necessity. To challenge this denial, the provider or claimant must present medical evidence — typically an affirmation from the treating physician — explaining why the treatment was necessary and rebutting the peer review findings.
How do you challenge a peer review denial?
To overcome a peer review denial, you typically need an affirmation or affidavit from the treating physician that specifically addresses and rebuts the peer reviewer's findings. The treating physician must explain the medical rationale for the treatment, reference the patient's clinical findings, and demonstrate why the peer reviewer's conclusions were incorrect. Generic or conclusory statements are insufficient — the response must be detailed and fact-specific.
What criteria determine medical necessity for no-fault treatment in New York?
Medical necessity is evaluated based on whether the treatment is appropriate for the patient's diagnosed condition, consistent with accepted medical standards, and not primarily for the convenience of the patient or provider. Peer reviewers assess factors including clinical findings, diagnostic test results, treatment plan consistency with the diagnosis, and whether the patient is showing functional improvement. Treatment that is excessive, experimental, or unsupported by objective findings may be deemed not medically necessary.
Can an insurer cut off no-fault benefits based on one IME?
Yes, an insurer can discontinue benefits after a single IME doctor concludes that further treatment is not medically necessary or that the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. However, the IME report must be sufficiently detailed and the denial must be issued within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c). The treating physician can submit a rebuttal affirmation explaining why continued treatment is necessary, forming the basis for challenging the cut-off at arbitration.
What is a peer review in no-fault insurance?
A peer review is a paper-based evaluation where a licensed medical professional reviews the patient's records and renders an opinion on whether the billed treatment was medically necessary. Unlike an IME, the peer reviewer does not examine the patient. The peer review report must be detailed, address the specific treatment at issue, and explain the medical rationale for the opinion. Generic or boilerplate peer reviews that fail to address the patient's individual clinical presentation may be found insufficient.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.
