Key Takeaway
Donoso dismissed a tort claim for missing causation evidence. It did not overrule All-In-One's stipulated-records ruling in a no-fault trial.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 170 published articles analyzing medical necessity 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.
Donoso v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 118 AD3d 461 (2014) dismissed a tort serious-injury claim for lack of causal proof at trial. It did not overrule the no-fault medical-necessity decision in All-In-One. The original headline reflects Jason’s criticism of that decision.
Legal Update (September 2026): Chapter 58 of 2026, Part EE §§ 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the historical decision discussed here predates that amendment.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
The distinction between the two trials
In Donoso, the plaintiff called no treating physician or medical expert. The medical records did not connect the accident to the lumbar condition and included a finding of degeneration. Surgery occurred four years later. The First Department held that the defendant’s directed-verdict motion should have been granted, reversed the plaintiff’s jury verdict and dismissed the complaint.
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.
All-In-One Medical Care v GEICO, 43 Misc 3d 726 (2014) involved a provider’s assigned-benefits claim. The parties stipulated to the admission of medical records without objection; the insurer’s IME physician testified. The Nassau District Court considered the later treatment records in deciding medical necessity. Those stipulated evidentiary circumstances distinguish it from Donoso.
The dates also need correction: All-In-One was decided March 13, 2014, and Donoso on June 5, nearly three months later. Donoso does not establish that every no-fault provider must call a medical witness despite an evidentiary stipulation. This note does not establish whether All-In-One itself was appealed.
Jason’s original 2014 commentary
Jason’s September 2014 comments are preserved below as historical opinion. The timing and suggested conflict are corrected above: Donoso was decided nearly three months after All-In-One and did not overrule it. The closing statement is not a universal medical-witness rule for stipulated no-fault trials.
This came out a few months ago and I meant to post it. There was a case in 2014 where Judge Ciaffa (District, Nassau County) held that stipulated post-IME treatment notes were sufficient to rebut the testimony of an IME physician and to prove that the services were medically necessary. Literally, one month after All in One was published, the First Department published Donoso which says otherwise.
What’s the lesson of the story? You must have an expert opine that the service was medically necessary. I hope GEICO appealed All in one, but I am not holding my breath.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the pre-existing injuries and causation topic hub.
- Imran: a biomechanical opinion without a proper foundation
- Cariddi: the basis of an expert opinion and missing records
- Johnson: causal proof on a default-judgment application
- Malloy: medical reasons connecting a knee injury to the collision
- Khanfour: reconcile earlier and later range-of-motion findings
For review of a particular dispute, contact the firm.
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
Medical Necessity Disputes in No-Fault Insurance
Medical necessity is the most common basis for no-fault claim denials in New York. Insurers hire peer reviewers to opine that treatment was not medically necessary, shifting the burden to providers and claimants to demonstrate otherwise. The legal standards for establishing and rebutting medical necessity — including the sufficiency of peer review reports, the qualifications of reviewing physicians, and the evidentiary burdens at arbitration and trial — are the subject of extensive case law. These articles provide detailed analysis of medical necessity litigation strategies and court decisions.
170 published articles in Medical Necessity
Keep Reading
More Medical Necessity Analysis
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
Another Medical Necessity?
DRD Medical defeated the insurer's motion in 2020. Compare the court's finding of a factual dispute with Jason's original criticism of the affidavit.
Apr 27, 2020
Another Geffner sighting
Court decision requiring medical experts to demonstrate proper qualifications when testifying outside their specialty area in NY personal injury cases.
Dec 30, 2014
Reverse Pan Chiropractic
Ocean Diagnostic awarded judgment on medical proof the insurer did not answer. Jason's 2012 note revisits the 2006 majority and concurrence.
Jun 27, 2012
Analysis or reference to scientific data is necessary to defeat a motion based upon the lack of causal connection between lead paint and attendant poisoning
New York Court of Appeals ruling demonstrates that expert testimony in toxic exposure cases requires scientific data and analysis, not mere speculation, to establish causation.
Jun 22, 2010
Understanding Medical Necessity Denials: Escaping the Four Corners Rule in Long Island No-Fault Cases
A.B. Medical distinguished the denial form from the medical report. Read the 2007 ruling, correct report-request provision and related no-fault cases.
Oct 15, 2008Was 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 medical necessity 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.
