Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 278 published articles analyzing evidence 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.
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:
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.
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.
Related Articles
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
Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation
The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.
278 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
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
A sighting of “interboard” in action
Court ruling shows "interboard" IME cutoff requirements in action - acupuncture provider loses no-fault case for lack of medical evidence opposing summary judgment motion.
Jun 30, 2016
Some substance to an IME cut off defense
Premier Health Choice: the supported IME cutoff, the provider's two opposition defects, and why an examination is different from an IME no-show.
Nov 3, 2013
Attacking an expert based upon his religion leads to reversal
Court of Appeals reverses civil commitment case where prosecutor attacked expert witness based on religious beliefs during cross-examination, violating fair trial standards.
Apr 6, 2011
Neurologist Expert Testimony Limits in MRI Medical Necessity Cases – Long Island & NYC
Nassau County court rules neurologists cannot challenge chiropractor MRI orders without proper foundation.
Jan 21, 2010Was 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 evidence 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.
