Key Takeaway
New York court denies summary judgment in no-fault case where plaintiff timely requested but didn't receive peer review reports and medical documentation from defendant insurer.
Timing Is Everything in No-Fault Discovery Disputes
Successful litigation in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases often hinges on timing and strategic discovery requests. When insurance companies move for summary judgment too quickly, before allowing adequate discovery, courts may deny their motions if the medical provider can demonstrate they’ve been deprived of essential documentation.
The Metropolitan Diagnostic case illustrates a critical principle: medical providers who promptly seek discovery of peer review materials and medical documentation can successfully defend against premature summary judgment motions. This contrasts sharply with cases where providers wait months after joinder of issue before requesting discovery, often resulting in unfavorable outcomes.
Understanding when and how to request peer review reports is crucial for protecting medical providers’ rights in no-fault litigation. The timing of these requests can make the difference between a successful defense and summary judgment against the provider.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52246(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“In opposition to defendant’s motion, and in support of its cross motion to compel discovery, plaintiff demonstrated that it had requested from defendant, but had not received, the peer review report, the complete set of medical documentation relating to the assignor received by defendant and the complete set of medical documentation provided to defendant’s peer reviewer (see Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 ). Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was premature (see CPLR 3212 ), and the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to compel discovery should have been granted.”
It appears that A. Central moved for summary judgment relatively quickly following receipt of an answer. Furthermore, Metropolitan Diagnostic cross-moved for disclosure based relief in that motion sequence. That is why “Under the circumstances”, Plaintiff was able to stave off summary judgment. This should be contrasted to the line of cases where Plaintiff does not seek disclosure for 8-10 months following joinder of issue and Defendant then moves for summary judgment. In that scenario, Plaintiff loses its motion and summary judgment is granted.
Key Takeaway
Medical providers must act swiftly when requesting discovery materials from insurance companies. Those who promptly seek peer review reports and medical documentation after joinder of issue can successfully oppose premature summary judgment motions, while providers who delay these requests for months typically face unfavorable outcomes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s discovery rules under CPLR Article 31 have undergone amendments, and Insurance Department regulations governing no-fault discovery procedures may have been updated. Additionally, appellate decisions regarding timing requirements for peer review discovery requests and summary judgment standards in no-fault cases may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law developments when advising on discovery timing strategies.
