![Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/peer-report-is-sufficient-to-prima-facie-prove-lack-of-serious-injury-ins-law-sec-5102d.avif)
Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 245 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues 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.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, defendants often rely on expert medical opinions to challenge whether a plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under Insurance Law Section 5102(d). A key question that frequently arises is what type of expert evidence is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that no serious injury occurred.
The Fourth Department’s decision in Fisher v Hill provides important guidance on this issue, particularly regarding the use of peer review experts who examine medical records without conducting independent medical examinations. This approach is common in personal injury defense work, where insurance companies retain medical experts to review existing documentation and provide opinions on causation and injury severity.
Understanding the evidentiary standards for expert testimony in serious injury threshold cases is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants. The courts have generally been receptive to various forms of expert evidence, as seen in cases involving biomechanical evidence and other specialized expert opinions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Fisher v Hill, 2014 NY Slip Op 00830 (4th Dept. 2014)
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.
It is infrequent that I post on the serious injury threshold. But a Plaintiff on a PI case that I am handling rejected a 3101(d) based upon the fact that our expert will be the classic peer reviewer. He will look at the EBT testimony, medical records, Bill of Particulars and testify that Plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” since the injuries were not causally related to the loss.
“In support of their motion, defendants submitted medical records and the affirmed report of a neuroradiologist who examined plaintiff’s medical records at defendants’ request. The neuroradiologist concluded that the objective medical findings related only to a preexisting condition in plaintiff’s spine. “ith persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition, plaintiff had the burden to come forward with evidence addressing defendant claimed lack of causation” and, here, plaintiffs failed to meet that burden”
Key Takeaway
The Fisher v Hill decision demonstrates that a peer review expert’s report, based solely on examination of medical records, can be sufficient to establish a prima facie defense to serious injury claims. When defendants present persuasive evidence that injuries relate to preexisting conditions, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to provide contradictory evidence on causation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s serious injury threshold jurisprudence under Insurance Law Section 5102(d) has continued to evolve through appellate decisions that may have refined the standards for peer review expert testimony and prima facie showings. Additionally, procedural rules governing expert disclosure and the admissibility of records-based medical opinions may have been updated through court rule amendments or statutory changes. Practitioners should verify current evidentiary standards and recent appellate precedent regarding peer review experts in no-fault threshold cases.
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.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues 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
Expert Witness in Car Accident Lawsuits
Learn how expert witnesses in New York car accident lawsuits help establish fault, causation, and damages through accident reconstruction, medical testimony, and economic analysis.
May 14, 2025
Wrong expert
Learn NY expert witness requirements for medical malpractice. Analysis of Perez decision & qualification standards. Call 516-750-0595.
Nov 24, 2019
Serious injury, causation and the ability to recover
Court ruling shows how lack of causation in knee injury claims can bar recovery even when serious injury threshold is met for other injuries.
Nov 28, 2016
The jury could not find under a reasonable view of the evidence that plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury under 5102(d)
Court overturns jury verdict finding no serious injury under Insurance Law 5102(d) when plaintiff proved rotator cuff tear with significant range of motion loss.
Jun 20, 2013
The spreadsheet was not in admissible form?
Total Family v Mercury: the 2010 spreadsheet-foundation dispute, Jason's original explanation, and the mixed verification, billing and discovery result.
Aug 19, 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 5102(d) issues 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.
