Key Takeaway
DTG Operations v Travelers: the 2016 loss-transfer award survived review because the record supported causation. Compare the different Medco Tech remand.
This article is part of our ongoing article 75 coverage, with 81 published articles analyzing article 75 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.
DTG Operations: a supported loss-transfer award
Matter of DTG Operations, Inc. v Travelers Indemnity Co., 145 AD3d 646 (1st Dept 2016), was decided December 29, 2016.
Travelers had paid personal injury protection benefits and sought loss-transfer reimbursement under Insurance Law § 5105 through mandatory intercompany arbitration.
DTG sought to vacate the resulting award. The First Department affirmed the denial of that petition because the record supported a causal relationship between the accident and the treatment paid for.
This was an inter-insurer reimbursement dispute. It was not a provider’s equipment claim or a general ruling that any assertion of aggravation proves causation.
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 explanation in the record
Travelers responded in writing to the causation argument. It explained that the injured person had a preexisting disability, that the accident worsened the condition and that recovery required more treatment.
The court found an evidentiary basis for the award. It also noted the absence of fraud allegations and stated that further proof could have been requested if the petitioner questioned the amount paid.
The opinion does not discuss a later tumor, an ignored post-IME complication or gaps in treatment. Those subjects should not be attributed to this case or to Jason’s original analysis of it.
Jason’s original observation — December 30, 2016
The original note focused on the response to the causation challenge:
As can be seen here, the exacerbation argument won the day in this case.
That is Jason’s contemporaneous description of this record. It does not mean every aggravation argument succeeds without supporting evidence.
Compare Medco Tech’s different record
The later Medco Tech equipment appeal reached a different result. The court vacated the award and ordered a new hearing on the record before it.
The difference matters more than the shared word “causation.” DTG involved loss transfer and a supported explanation of aggravation; Medco Tech involved the relationship between an accident, surgery and equipment.
The firm’s de novo terminology guide explains the broader procedural language. Neither case creates an unrestricted right to retry every adverse arbitration result in court.
For no-fault defense review, identify the type of arbitration, the evidence offered and the actual grounds for vacatur. The Legal Encyclopedia supplies broader navigation.
For review of a current file, request a Free Case Review.
Last reviewed: September 2026 — editorial source check against DTG Operations and Medco Tech. Original publication date retained; unrelated factual material removed.
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
Article 75 Proceedings: Judicial Review of Arbitration
CPLR Article 75 governs the judicial review of arbitration awards in New York. In no-fault practice, Article 75 petitions are the mechanism for challenging master arbitration awards — whether on grounds of irrationality, excess of power, or procedural irregularity. The standards for vacating or confirming arbitration awards are narrow but important. These articles analyze Article 75 jurisprudence and the practical considerations involved in seeking judicial review of no-fault arbitration outcomes.
81 published articles in Article 75
Keep Reading
More Article 75 Analysis
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
Gary T day
Four 2019 Article 75 decisions: Bay Needle's affirmed vacatur, limits on master review, and links to Jason's McMahon and Medco Tech appeal notes.
Oct 17, 2019
Understanding the Lobel Effect: No-Fault Insurance and Personal Injury Law
Learn how no-fault arbitration can destroy your personal injury case through collateral estoppel. Expert legal analysis from experienced Long Island attorney.
Apr 14, 2009
Out of Scope, Out of Mind: When Physicians Testify Outside Their Specialty in New York
New York court rules physicians must establish foundation when testifying outside their specialty.
May 24, 2018
Serious injury, causation and the ability to recover
Court ruling shows how lack of causation in knee injury claims can bar recovery even when serious injury threshold is met for other injuries.
Nov 28, 2016
Great Wall is binding precedent on American Arbitration Association
Court rules American Arbitration Association arbitrator failed to follow binding Great Wall precedent on acupuncture fee schedules in no-fault insurance dispute.
Apr 30, 2013Was 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 article 75 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.
