Key Takeaway
Long Island no-fault attorney discusses PF-NCT testing defenses including fraud, coding disputes, and EMG/NCV overlap in medical necessity cases.
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.
One of the “tests” that we see a lot of are on the run of the mill CPT, V-SNCT, PF-NCT. Of course, if you ask a Claimant “Have you ever had a CPT, V-SNCT, PF-NCT test?”, they will look at you with googly eyes. But when you show them a pen and say “you know, the test where this pen like device is connected to a computer and areas of your body are touched”, then they say, “oh I remember that.” Then you ask them, did anyone tell you the results? Nope.
This testing has three defenses. The first is the “fraud” defense. I lost that one 10 years ago, but had fun trying (Tahir v. Progressive). Nothing more will be said as the testing (even to its most vocal critics) has some valid purposes when dealing with diabetic neuropathy.
The second defense I am now seeing en vogue is the “coding” defense. Should the test be billed at 95903, 95999 or a T-3 code? Different people have different answers. My vote is for a T-3 code. This has had success at arbitrations. I would be interested to see what the Appellate Term says (when a proper foundation is adduced at either trial or on motion practice). The 95903 code appears to be from an instruction manual that the end user gets when they purchase the Axion-II machine (or its predecessors).
The new PF-NCT purports not to be entirely subjective as there is a potentiameter. Still, the patient is in control as (s) he is told to explain when they feel pain during the performance of the test, hence the subjective component. Thus, the potentiometer is supposed to objectify the subjective component of the test.
The third defense is based upon the EMG/NCV test occurring within weeks or a few months of the PF-NCT test during the patient’s treatment path. The theory, and I think it is quite valid, is pick your test. Either perform the EMG/NCV test (the so-called “gold-standard”) or the PF-NCT test, but not both. The detractors of this argument will say the the PF-NCT is more sensitive to A- fibers and C-Fibers (pain receptors) that the EMG/NCV does not address. But isn’t an EMG/NCV when appropriately performed with an examination sufficient to obtain all of the objective data? Many time, the EMG/NCV may also be overkill.
Also, if you take a pin and prick various parts of the body (waiting to elicit a response from the patient), shouldn’t this be sufficient to determine the extent of the pain fibers and to allow the clinician to accurately determine where there is sensitivity.
Related Articles
- Understanding Medical Necessity Denials: Escaping the Four Corners Rule in Long Island No-Fault Cases
- Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
- Medical Necessity in No-Fault Insurance: Understanding the First Department’s Victory for Insurance Carriers
- A prima facie case of medical necessity?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault fee schedules and medical necessity regulations have undergone multiple revisions that may affect the billing codes and reimbursement rates discussed for PF-NCT testing. Additionally, arbitration procedures and evidentiary standards for challenging such testing may have evolved through subsequent regulatory amendments and case law developments. Practitioners should verify current fee schedule provisions and medical necessity criteria when evaluating these testing procedures.
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
Court finds MUA treatment too aggressive without proper foundation. Expert testimony on medical necessity prevails in no-fault insurance dispute.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Medical Necessity?
New York court finds conflicting medical opinions create triable issue on physical therapy necessity, despite provider's weak affidavit of merit in no-fault insurance case.
Apr 27, 2020
More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report
Three recent no-fault insurance cases demonstrate how plaintiffs consistently fail to provide adequate medical expert testimony to rebut insurance carriers' utilization reports.
Nov 27, 2010
Conclusory affidavits will not defeat an insurance carrier's summary judgment motion
Learn how conclusory affidavits fail to defeat insurance carriers' summary judgment motions in NY no-fault cases. Bronze Acupuncture v Mercury shows what works.
Jun 18, 2009
Unsworn letters not enough
Court ruling shows unsworn, unsigned letters of medical necessity lack probative value in no-fault insurance disputes, emphasizing proper documentation requirements.
Oct 6, 2015
Triable issue of fact through another IME in a different specialty
Brooklyn Chiropractic v A. Cent. Ins. Co.: Court finds triable issue of fact when plaintiff's IME contradicts insurer's IME, but peer review denial stands unopposed.
Jun 11, 2013Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a medical necessity denial in no-fault insurance?
A medical necessity denial occurs when the insurer's peer reviewer determines that treatment was not medically necessary based on a review of the patient's medical records. The peer reviewer writes a report explaining why the treatment does not meet the standard of medical necessity. To challenge this denial, the provider or claimant must present medical evidence — typically an affirmation from the treating physician — explaining why the treatment was necessary and rebutting the peer review findings.
How do you challenge a peer review denial?
To overcome a peer review denial, you typically need an affirmation or affidavit from the treating physician that specifically addresses and rebuts the peer reviewer's findings. The treating physician must explain the medical rationale for the treatment, reference the patient's clinical findings, and demonstrate why the peer reviewer's conclusions were incorrect. Generic or conclusory statements are insufficient — the response must be detailed and fact-specific.
What criteria determine medical necessity for no-fault treatment in New York?
Medical necessity is evaluated based on whether the treatment is appropriate for the patient's diagnosed condition, consistent with accepted medical standards, and not primarily for the convenience of the patient or provider. Peer reviewers assess factors including clinical findings, diagnostic test results, treatment plan consistency with the diagnosis, and whether the patient is showing functional improvement. Treatment that is excessive, experimental, or unsupported by objective findings may be deemed not medically necessary.
Can an insurer cut off no-fault benefits based on one IME?
Yes, an insurer can discontinue benefits after a single IME doctor concludes that further treatment is not medically necessary or that the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. However, the IME report must be sufficiently detailed and the denial must be issued within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c). The treating physician can submit a rebuttal affirmation explaining why continued treatment is necessary, forming the basis for challenging the cut-off at arbitration.
What is a peer review in no-fault insurance?
A peer review is a paper-based evaluation where a licensed medical professional reviews the patient's records and renders an opinion on whether the billed treatment was medically necessary. Unlike an IME, the peer reviewer does not examine the patient. The peer review report must be detailed, address the specific treatment at issue, and explain the medical rationale for the opinion. Generic or boilerplate peer reviews that fail to address the patient's individual clinical presentation may be found insufficient.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.
