Key Takeaway
Huntington Regional Chiropractic: two supported IMEs met medical affidavits that raised a trial issue. Jason's 2015 questions remain distinct from the ruling.
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.
Two supported IME reports did not end the dispute in Huntington Regional Chiropractic, P.C. v Truck Insurance Exchange, 2015 NY Slip Op 51068(U). The providers’ medical affidavits raised a trial issue, so the Appellate Term reversed the challenged summary-judgment dismissals. That result says something about the papers before the court—not that any contrary medical opinion defeats a motion.
Historical note: Huntington Regional Chiropractic (July 13, 2015) held the providers’ medical affidavits sufficient to contest two supported IME reports; it did not publish their clinical details or establish a rule that every opposing opinion requires a trial.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
What the opinion establishes
The Second Department’s Appellate Term, for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, decided the appeal on July 13, 2015. The insurer submitted reports from a chiropractor and an orthopedist. Both supplied reasons tied to medical facts; the providers’ opposing affidavits were nevertheless sufficient to contest the claims at issue.
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.
The opinion does not describe treatment frequency, injury severity, expected recovery time or the contents of contemporaneous notes. Those details cannot be reconstructed from this short decision.
Read Total Equipment as a contrast
The cited Total Equipment v Praetorian decision (January 24, 2012) granted the insurer summary judgment on a supported IME report that the provider did not rebut. It did not reject the report as conclusory. Reading the outcomes together makes the distinction clearer: establishing an initial medical showing and answering the opposing evidence are separate questions.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s July 2015 questions follow unchanged. The published opinion does not answer them or identify the treatment notes and evidentiary objections in the underlying record.
Were there contemporaneous notes? Was there anything in admissible form? Did Defendant preserve appropriate hearsay and other evidentiary objections?
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer-review topic hub for the archive’s case directory. Compare these related records:
- Hunt City: competing chiropractic opinions left a trial issue
- Glenn Segal: inadequate opposition to two IME reports
- Arnica: an IME rebuttal that missed objective findings
- AP Diagnostic: the clinical reason for an MRI
- Amato: reversal after trial on post-IME treatment
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the relevant reports, submissions and orders.
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
A motion for summary judgment is denied pending disclosure
New York court denies summary judgment in no-fault case where plaintiff timely requested but didn't receive peer review reports and medical documentation from defendant insurer.
Jan 6, 2014
First Presbyterian, then PSW – Maryland is at it again
PSW Chiropractic affirmed a provider's trial judgment in 2011. The majority deferred to credibility findings; the dissent read the evidence differently.
Sep 26, 2011
Understanding Medical Necessity Defense Failures in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Learn how medical necessity defenses fail in NY no-fault cases. Expert analysis of Progressive Med v Allstate reveals key evidentiary pitfalls & hearsay issues.
Feb 18, 2010
Default granted but summary judgment motion denied
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum case analysis: court grants default but denies summary judgment on medical necessity peer review signature issues.
Oct 13, 2016Was 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.
