Key Takeaway
New York court ruling shows that provider depositions in no-fault cases require "articulable need" - even minimal disclosure may suffice to block EBT motions.
Understanding Provider Depositions in No-Fault Medical Necessity Cases
No-fault insurance litigation often involves disputes over medical necessity, where insurance companies challenge whether treatments were actually required. One key battleground is whether healthcare providers can be compelled to sit for depositions (examinations before trial or “EBTs”). A recent Appellate Term decision provides important guidance on when courts will allow these depositions, establishing that insurers must demonstrate an “articulable need” for the provider’s testimony.
This ruling is particularly significant because it shows how courts balance the need for discovery against protecting healthcare providers from unnecessary depositions. The case also highlights the unique procedural landscape of no-fault litigation, where traditional disclosure rules sometimes take unexpected turns.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Arnica Acupuncture P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50554(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014)
“However, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff’s treating provider on this record, which contains an affidavit from the provider explaining the rationale for the underlying acupuncture services, and where defendant failed to set forth an “articulable need” for the provider’s deposition ”
This case lies on the extreme end of the Ralph Medical spectrum. Plaintiff did not comply with “interrogatories”, offer an operative report or comply with disclosure in any shape, fashion or form. Rather, the court has held that an affidavit of merit will suffice for a deposition. People have joked, on and off, that the CPLR does not apply to no-fault. This case is further proof that there is truth to that maxim.
Key Takeaway
The Arnica decision demonstrates that courts may deny provider deposition requests even when plaintiffs provide minimal disclosure, as long as some explanatory documentation (like an affidavit) exists. Insurance companies must articulate specific reasons why a deposition is necessary beyond what written submissions already provide. This reflects the unique procedural standards that often govern no-fault litigation.
