The peer review was insufficient

In New York’s no-fault insurance system, peer review reports play a crucial role when insurers deny claims for medical necessity. These reports must provide detailed medical rationale to justify coverage denials, not just conclusory statements. The First Department Appellate Term has established particularly rigorous standards for what constitutes adequate peer review documentation, creating a higher evidentiary threshold than some practitioners encounter in the Second Department.

Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.6, insurance carriers may deny claims for services that are not medically necessary. However, the regulatory framework does not specify the precise level of detail required in peer review documentation to support such denials. This gap has led to significant case law development, with courts establishing that peer reviewers must do more than simply state conclusions—they must articulate the medical reasoning underlying their determinations.

The divergence between First and Second Department standards creates practical challenges for both providers and insurers operating throughout New York State. While the Second Department has sometimes accepted more abbreviated peer review reports, the First Department consistently demands comprehensive medical analysis that connects clinical findings to necessity conclusions. This heightened scrutiny serves important policy objectives: it prevents arbitrary denials, ensures patients receive medically appropriate care, and maintains the integrity of the no-fault system by requiring insurers to substantiate coverage decisions.

Case Background

In Amherst Medical Supply, LLC v A. Central Insurance Co., a medical supply provider sought payment for durable medical equipment furnished to an accident victim covered under defendant’s no-fault policy. The insurance carrier denied the claim based on lack of medical necessity, submitting a peer review report from a chiropractor who reviewed the medical file and concluded the supplies were unnecessary.

The provider filed suit seeking payment, and defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. In support of its motion, defendant submitted the peer review report and an accompanying affidavit from the reviewing chiropractor. However, these documents contained minimal explanation of why the durable medical goods were deemed unnecessary.

The peer reviewer’s analysis consisted primarily of a conclusory statement: “I do not find the need for … durable medical goods.” This bare assertion lacked any discussion of the patient’s documented injuries, treatment history, functional limitations, or clinical indications that would support or contradict the need for the medical supplies. The reviewer did not explain which specific aspects of the patient’s condition made the supplies unnecessary, nor did he reference any medical literature, treatment protocols, or clinical guidelines supporting his conclusion.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Amherst Med. Supply, LLC v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51800(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)

“The peer review report and accompanying affidavit submitted by defendant’s chiropractor failed to set forth a factual basis or medical rationale for his stated conclusion that the medical supplies here at issue were not medically necessary. The peer reviewer’s bald assertion that “I do not find the need for … durable medical goods,” was insufficient to meet defendant’s prima facie burden of eliminating all triable issues as to medical necessity.”

This Court tends to scrutinize peer reports and rebuttals more than the Second Department. Thus, while this Court will hold the providers to a higher burden to satisfy the Pan Chiro/CPT Medical test, the proof needed to shift the burden is accordingly higher.

Legal Significance

The Amherst Medical Supply decision reinforces fundamental principles of summary judgment practice in no-fault litigation. To establish prima facie entitlement to judgment, the moving party must present evidence in admissible form that eliminates all triable issues of fact. Conclusory expert opinions, unsupported by factual analysis or medical reasoning, fail to meet this standard regardless of the expert’s credentials or experience.

This heightened scrutiny reflects the First Department’s recognition that medical necessity determinations directly impact patient care and provider compensation. Unlike purely procedural defenses such as late notice or verification non-compliance, medical necessity denials require substantive medical analysis. Courts cannot properly evaluate whether treatment was necessary without understanding the medical reasoning underlying the peer reviewer’s conclusion.

The decision also addresses the burden-shifting framework governing summary judgment in no-fault cases. Insurers bear the initial burden of establishing their defense through competent evidence. Only after meeting this threshold does the burden shift to providers to raise triable issues of fact. When insurers submit deficient peer reviews lacking factual basis or medical rationale, they fail at step one, and providers need not submit rebuttal evidence to defeat summary judgment.

Practical Implications

For insurance carriers defending medical necessity denials, Amherst Medical Supply establishes clear documentation requirements. Peer reviewers must articulate specific medical reasons supporting their conclusions, referencing the patient’s particular condition, injury mechanism, and treatment course. Generic statements that supplies or services are “not necessary” without explanation will not withstand summary judgment scrutiny in First Department cases.

Healthcare providers facing medical necessity denials should carefully evaluate the sufficiency of peer review documentation before settlement discussions. When peer reports lack factual basis or medical rationale, providers possess strong arguments against summary judgment even without submitting rebuttal reports. This can provide significant leverage in settlement negotiations or justify proceeding to trial on the necessity issue.

Practitioners should also note the jurisdictional distinction Jason identifies between First and Second Department standards. Cases venued in First Department counties (New York and Bronx) benefit from more stringent peer review requirements, while Second Department cases may face more lenient standards. This geographic variation can influence forum selection considerations in cases involving multiple potential venues.

Key Takeaway

The First Department requires peer reviewers to provide detailed factual basis and medical rationale for their conclusions. Unlike situations where a copy of a peer report is all that is needed, conclusory statements without supporting analysis will not satisfy the insurer’s burden to eliminate triable issues of medical necessity.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s peer review standards and medical necessity evaluation procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments, updated Insurance Department guidance, or subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current peer review documentation requirements and medical necessity standards under the most recent no-fault regulations and case law.

Related Articles

• Peer review
• Medical necessity – rebutting a peer review
• Peer review testimony is admissible and sufficient