Key Takeaway
Hunt City's 2013 medical-necessity ruling left conflicting expert opinions for trial. The opinion does not identify a post-IME cutoff or detail the affidavits.
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.
Hunt City Chiropractic v Chubb Indemnity, 2013 NY Slip Op 51679(U) left a chiropractic medical-necessity dispute unresolved on summary judgment. The First Department’s Appellate Term found that the competing medical opinions raised a trial issue. It did not decide that the provider had proved entitlement to payment.
Historical note: Hunt City (October 15, 2013) found a trial issue on its competing medical opinions; Arnica (March 1, 2016) later rejected a different IME rebuttal that did not address the objective findings.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
A short holding, not a reconstructed medical record
The October 15, 2013 decision affirmed the denial of the insurer’s motion. It gives no treatment chronology, examination findings or detailed account of either expert’s submission.
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.
That matters for the original comment below. Jason wondered whether this was a post-IME cutoff case and what supported the rebuttal. The opinion does not answer those questions. A later summary should not turn his tentative reading into a reported fact.
Compare the evidence, not just the result
In the later Arnica decision (2016), the Appellate Division rejected an acupuncture affidavit that did not address objective IME findings. The two outcomes are not interchangeable: “conflicting opinions” describes Hunt City’s accepted proof, not a promise that every disagreement survives dismissal. The linked archive notes below provide more detail where the courts actually supplied it.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s October 2013 reaction follows unchanged, including his tentative description of a post-IME cutoff. The reported decision does not supply enough facts to confirm that description or identify the Utica Acupuncture comparison.
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
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review topic hub for the archive’s case directory. Compare these related records:
- Huntington Regional Chiropractic: medical affidavits answered two IMEs
- AP Diagnostic: the clinical reason for an MRI
- Glenn Segal: inadequate opposition to two IME reports
- Arnica: an IME rebuttal that missed objective findings
- Amato: reversal after trial on post-IME treatment
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the relevant reports, submissions and orders.
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
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
Appellate Term Second Department expounds on sufficient medical rationale in DME case
Park Slope Medical rejected a nonresponsive DME rebuttal in 2013. The decision concerns the evidence for particular supplies, not a three-therapy limit.
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
Bronze Acupuncture rejected unsupported disagreement with an IME. Compare Park Slope without treating Jason's prediction as an overruling.
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, 2015Was 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.
