Key Takeaway
Court rules that unsigned peer review reports can be properly remedied when identical signed versions are submitted in reply papers without prejudicing the opposing party.
Correcting Defective Evidence in Summary Judgment Motions
No-fault insurance litigation often hinges on the admissibility and sufficiency of expert evidence, particularly peer review reports that challenge the medical necessity of treatments. When insurers submit defective evidence in their initial summary judgment motions, the question arises: can these defects be cured through reply papers?
The Appellate Term’s decision in SAL Med., P.C. v Clarendon National Insurance Co. addresses this procedural issue head-on. The case involved a common problem in New York No-Fault Insurance Law - an unsigned peer review report that was initially submitted to support the insurer’s denial of coverage.
This ruling provides important guidance for both healthcare providers and insurers navigating the complexities of no-fault litigation. It demonstrates the court’s practical approach to procedural defects when the substantive evidence remains unchanged and no party suffers prejudice from the correction.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
SAL Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51449(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“The defect in one of the peer review reports submitted by defendant with its original motion papers, in that it did not bear a signature, was properly and timely remedied when the identical peer review report, this time bearing a signature, was submitted by defendant in its reply papers, and there is no indication that plaintiff was prejudiced in opposing defendant’s motion by this defect in form”
Key Takeaway
Courts will allow parties to cure minor procedural defects in evidence through reply papers when the substance remains identical and no prejudice results to the opposing party. This practical approach prevents technical deficiencies from derailing otherwise valid medical necessity challenges in no-fault insurance disputes.
