Key Takeaway
Healing Art's 2015 appeal limited a search of the record to issues raised by the motion. Reinstating the disputed claims did not award the provider payment.
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.
Healing Art reinstated the claims that Civil Court had dismissed after searching the record. The provider still did not win its own summary-judgment motion.
Historical note: Healing Art (November 13, 2015) removed a record-search dismissal on an issue outside the provider’s motion; the provider’s own summary-judgment motion remained denied.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
A limit on this record search
The insurer opposed the provider’s motion with medical-necessity and fee-schedule defenses. Civil Court denied the provider’s motion, then searched the record and dismissed claims for services after November 20, 2009 on the IME defense.
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.
On November 13, 2015, the Second Department’s Appellate Term struck that dismissal. Medical necessity had not been the subject of the provider’s motion. The court acknowledged that a nonmoving party can receive summary judgment; the problem was the issue reached here. The provider’s motion remained denied. Read Healing Art.
The claims returned without a finding that the treatment was necessary or payment was owed.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s November 2015 reaction follows unchanged. The procedural limit concerns the issues raised on this motion, not an absolute rule that a nonmoving party can never receive summary judgment.
Search of the record was inappropriate. It makes sense in this case as Plaintiff has no reason to believe (s) he had to proffer sufficient evidence to show the services were medically necessary,
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Medical necessity: case directory and related decisions
- Elmont Open MRI: why the purpose of treatment records mattered
- All Boro: a rebuttal that addressed another case
- Shirom: an earlier peer review did not reach the later bills
- Promed Orthocare: substitute testimony and a preserved objection
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the denial, relevant records and procedural history.
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
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, 2016
Premature summary judgment motion
Court rules defendant's summary judgment motion premature when plaintiff lacks discovery needed to oppose medical necessity denial in no-fault insurance case.
Mar 25, 2014
A Question of Fact Through an Affidavit of a Doctor: Medical Necessity in New York No-Fault Cases
Learn how doctor affidavits create questions of fact for medical necessity in NY no-fault insurance cases.
Feb 3, 2012Was 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.
