Key Takeaway
NY appellate court allows depositions in no-fault case, stepping back from restrictive Ralph Medical precedent that limited discovery in insurance disputes.
Court Allows Discovery Depositions in No-Fault Insurance Case
The discovery process in New York no-fault insurance litigation has seen significant evolution over the years. Courts have grappled with balancing insurers’ rights to defend claims against excessive treatment and fee schedule violations while preventing abuse of the discovery process. A recent appellate decision demonstrates how courts are refining their approach to discovery requests, particularly regarding depositions of medical providers.
The tension between comprehensive discovery rights and practical case management becomes especially apparent when motions for summary judgment are denied pending disclosure. This case represents an important shift in judicial thinking about the scope of permissible discovery in no-fault cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50340(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2017)
“We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to produce witnesses for deposition. Defendant preserved its excessive treatment and fee schedule defenses in the NF-10 denial of claim forms and demonstrated that the discovery sought was material and necessary to the defense of the action (see Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 139, 2013 NY Slip Op 51994 ; Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 136, 2012 NY Slip Op 52178 ). Unlike the situation in Ralph Med. Diagnostics, PC v Mercury Cas. Co. (43 Misc 3d 65 ), the discovery sought herein is neither unreasonable nor duplicative of information already provided.”
**It appears the court backed off from Ralph Medical (which makes sense because once you place a case in court, you are stuck with all of CPLR 3101). The analogue to ralph (Arnica v. Interboro), the deposition demand was struck despite the provider not providing any discovery. Clearly, someone woke up here.
Key Takeaway
This decision marks a notable departure from the restrictive Ralph Medical precedent, recognizing that parties who enter litigation must accept the full scope of CPLR discovery rules. The court appropriately balanced insurers’ legitimate need to defend excessive treatment claims with protection of medical facilities from unreasonable discovery demands, creating a more workable framework for no-fault litigation discovery.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, New York’s no-fault fee schedules have undergone multiple regulatory updates, and procedural rules governing discovery in no-fault cases may have been modified through subsequent appellate decisions and Insurance Department regulations. Practitioners should verify current fee schedule provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law interpreting CPLR 3101 in the no-fault context, as both reimbursement rates and discovery scope limitations may have evolved significantly.
