Insufficient Peer Review Reports: First Department's Higher Scrutiny Standard in NY No-Fault Cases

Last reviewed: September 2026.

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. Amherst concerns the sufficiency of the reports in its record. The departmental comparison in Jason’s original note is his observation, not a separate legal test adopted by the court.

The medical explanation required on the motion

The motion concerned a medical-necessity denial and the proof needed to support it under CPLR 3212. 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.

Both Appellate Terms use the requirement of a factual basis and medical rationale. Compare the actual submissions and holdings instead of assuming that one Department always applies a higher evidentiary threshold.

The reason for the result was the inadequacy of the insurer’s medical explanation, not a separate policy test.

Case Background: Amherst Medical Supply v A. Central Insurance

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.

The Deficient Peer Review

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
• 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.”

Jason’s original assessment, preserved as historical practitioner commentary:

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.

Why Conclusory Peer Reviews Fail on Summary Judgment

The Amherst Medical Supply decision reinforces fundamental principles of summary judgment practice in no-fault insurance defense 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.

A medical necessity dispute requires attention to the particular medical explanation. Unlike purely procedural defenses such as late notice or verification non-compliance, medical necessity denials require substantive medical analysis.

The Burden-Shifting Framework

The decision also addresses the burden-shifting framework governing summary judgment in no-fault cases:

1. Insurers bear the initial burden of establishing their defense through competent evidence
2. Only after meeting this threshold does the burden shift to providers to raise triable issues of fact
3. When insurers submit deficient peer reviews lacking factual basis, they fail at step one—and providers need not submit rebuttal evidence

Practical Implications

For Insurance Carriers

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.

For Healthcare Providers

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.

The Jurisdictional Distinction

Read Jason’s departmental comparison as a contemporaneous practice observation. Amherst does not establish a more lenient test elsewhere or authorize venue selection on that assumption. Venue and the governing appellate authority require their own analysis.

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.

---

The part of Amherst that the original excerpt left out

Amherst Medical Supply v A. Central Insurance, decided October 30, 2013, gave two reasons for leaving the insurer’s motion denied. The peer reviewer did not adequately explain the conclusion about the supplies. The provider also submitted a treating chiropractor’s affidavit identifying the medical conditions and explaining the intended benefit of each prescribed supply.

The second point is useful when preparing opposition. It identifies what the court found responsive in this record. The affidavit connected particular supplies to their intended medical benefits. That is materially different from repeating that all care was necessary.

The court did not announce a separate First Department statute or direct counsel to choose a venue with a lower evidentiary threshold. Jason’s original comparison of judicial scrutiny is practitioner commentary. Promed and Quality Health show the Second Department Appellate Term using the same factual-basis and medical-rationale language in evaluating peer-review proof.

Explain the reason, then test the response

A reviewer should make the reasoning understandable from the report. Identify the material medical findings and explain how they support the conclusion about the disputed supply. Counsel cannot repair a missing medical rationale by adding an argument in an attorney affirmation.

For the responding clinician, identify the particular criticism and the evidence supporting disagreement. Where the disputed question is the benefit of equipment, describe that benefit in relation to the patient’s condition. Avoid presenting an assumed indication as a documented finding.

These are practical ways to organize evidence. Amherst does not impose a universal requirement that every report cite medical literature, list every treatment alternative, or include the same checklist. It found the submitted reasoning inadequate and the particular response sufficient.

A failed insurer motion does not establish the provider’s entitlement

Under CPLR 3212(b), the moving party must first establish entitlement to judgment. Amherst left the denial of the insurer’s motion in place. It did not hold that every invoice was payable or direct payment of all disputed benefits.

So that difference is important for trying cases and for negotiating. A defending party can prevail on a motion if the other side fails to meet its initial burden. And a party seeking affirmative judgment has to support its own requested relief. So read the decretal paragraph of the order before you say the provider won the whole case.

The library’s Enko note describes the opposite motion result after an unrebutted explanation. Linking the two decisions lets a reader see why a short opinion about inadequate proof cannot be converted into a general rule against equipment denials.

Historical note: Amherst applies a factual-basis and medical-rationale requirement to the submitted peer review and separately addresses the provider’s responsive evidence. It does not establish a formal departmental hierarchy of proof; the governing motion framework remains CPLR 3212(b).

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the medical-necessity and peer-review hub. Use these related notes to compare the initial showing, the response and the result:

• Exclusive: the successful motion and its limits
• Park Slope: competing proof requires trial
• Two medical-necessity reversals and trial-limiting findings
• Innovative MRI: form versus medical reasoning

For help assessing a pending claim or motion, contact the firm with the denial, medical reports, motion papers and any court order. This historical discussion is general information, not advice on a particular file.