Unitrin has been back-doored into the Second Department

Key Takeaways

• This was a First Department decision, despite the reference to the Second Department in the original title.
• The appeal concerned a master arbitrator’s treatment of an IME no-show defense and an error in the denial.
• The First Department reversed the Bronx order, granted the petition and vacated the master award.
• The official opinion identifies Jason Tenenbaum as counsel for the insurer.
• Jason’s account below records his strategy in 2016; it is not a prediction about how another department will rule today.

Which court decided Professional Chiropractic Care?

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C., 139 AD3d 645 (1st Dept 2016), was decided May 31, 2016. The dispute reached the First Department from Supreme Court, Bronx County.

The original title reflected Jason’s reaction to the treatment of Unitrin. It did not identify the court issuing this decision. That distinction matters when tracing the case’s place in the no-fault archive.

The reported result was reversal of the order denying the insurer’s petition, grant of the petition and vacatur of the master award. The court directed entry of judgment. This was not simply permission to make another argument.

From arbitration to the Bronx petition

The underlying Supreme Court decision describes an initial arbitration denying the provider’s claim after the assignor failed to attend scheduled IMEs. The master arbitrator reversed that result.

The master arbitrator focused on the specificity of the denial. The Bronx court concluded that the incorrect date supplied a rational basis for the master award and declined to vacate it.

That decision was dated June 22, 2015. The First Department identifies the appealed order as entered July 10, 2015. Decision and entry dates describe separate procedural events.

Jason’s original post gives a broader account of three related arbitrations. The excerpt preserves that firsthand account; the published decisions provide the independently accessible procedural record.

Why the First Department vacated the award

The appellate court relied on American Transit v Lucas, Unitrin and Auto One v Hillside Chiropractic. It found the master award irrational for ignoring the IME no-show law the insurer had presented.

The alleged denial-form error did not supply a rational basis for the award on this record. The court’s reasoning concerned the particular coverage defense before it, not every possible defect in every no-fault denial.

For the broader subject, the firm’s IME no-show discussion collects related issues. This note preserves the narrower history of an appeal over a denial error and master arbitration review.

The opinion also addressed service of the petition. It found the provider had waived its objections by not moving to dismiss on those grounds. That separate procedural ruling should not be confused with the IME holding.

Jason’s original reaction — May 31, 2016

The following selections are from the original post. They record Jason’s involvement and litigation judgment at the time, rather than a new first-person account written years later.

This was one of my appeals. The case began as three no-fault arbitrations on Franklin Avenue. The carrier prevailed.

While I might be guilty of forum shopping, I am also guilty of trying to maximize my successes on an eventual appeal that I knew I would have to file.

The official appellate opinion independently names Jason as counsel for Global Liberty. His discussion of why he selected the forum and pursued the appeal adds context that the short judicial opinion does not attempt to supply.

His criticism of departmental differences was commentary. It was not a holding that the Second Department adopted this decision, or that courts must vacate an award merely because counsel disputes its legal analysis.

Three different appeals, three different questions

The later Medco Tech causation appeal concerned the relationship between an accident, surgery and medical equipment on a particular record. Its remedy was a new arbitral hearing.

The McMahon CPT Assistant appeal concerned refusal to consider incorporated coding guidance. That court also ordered a new arbitration, without resolving the final reimbursement dispute.

Those distinctions explain why these archive entries remain separate. A denial-form error, exclusion of coding authority and a record-specific causation dispute are not interchangeable grounds for relief.

Reading this decision with a claim file

A useful comparison starts with the materials actually before each decision-maker:

• The IME notices and evidence supporting the asserted failure to appear.
• The denial itself, including the dates and ground it communicated.
• The original and master arbitration awards.
• The authority presented to the master arbitrator.
• The petition, service objections and precise relief requested.

This is a reading checklist, not a substitute for the applicable procedural rules. A current no-fault defense matter requires review of its own record, deadlines and governing authority.

The Legal Encyclopedia is the starting point for broader terminology. This page’s contribution is the documented 2015–2016 path from an adverse master award to appellate relief.

For review of a current file, request a Free Case Review.

Last reviewed: September 2026 — editorial source check against the linked opinions. Original publication date retained. Historical analysis is not advice on a pending claim.