Key Takeaway
New York court upholds admission of doctor's peer review testimony on medical necessity despite hearsay objections in no-fault insurance case.
The admissibility of peer review testimony in no-fault insurance cases continues to be a contentious issue in New York courts. When insurance companies challenge the medical necessity of treatments, they often rely on independent medical examinations and peer review reports to support their denials. However, medical providers frequently object to such testimony on hearsay grounds, arguing that doctors are testifying about conclusions they did not personally reach or observations they did not personally make.
The case of Alev Medical Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Insurance Co. represents another instance where a New York court sided with the insurance carrier’s position on this evidentiary issue. This decision follows a well-established line of cases that have consistently allowed peer review testimony to proceed despite hearsay objections from medical providers seeking reimbursement under New York No-Fault Insurance Law.
The court’s ruling aligns with previous decisions that have shaped how medical necessity reversals are handled in no-fault litigation, particularly regarding the types of evidence that can be presented to challenge the necessity of medical treatments.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50130(U)
“Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the Civil Court properly overruled plaintiff’s hearsay objection to defendant’s doctor’s testimony as to the issue of medical necessity (see Park Slope Med. & Surg. Supply, Inc. v Travelers, 37 Misc 3d 19 ; Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 ; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140, 2010 NY Slip Op 50987 ). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit (see A-Quality Med. Supply v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 24 ; see also Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 146, 2013 NY Slip Op 50854 ).”
Another peer hearsay case.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces the established precedent that New York courts will generally permit insurance company doctors to testify about medical necessity determinations based on peer review, even when medical providers raise hearsay objections. The ruling demonstrates the consistent judicial approach favoring the admissibility of such expert testimony in no-fault insurance disputes, making it increasingly difficult for providers to exclude this type of evidence on procedural grounds.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s evidentiary standards for peer review testimony in no-fault cases may have evolved through subsequent court decisions and potential amendments to Civil Practice Law and Rules provisions governing hearsay exceptions. Practitioners should verify current case law developments and any regulatory changes affecting the admissibility of independent medical examination reports and peer review testimony in medical necessity challenges.
