Key Takeaway
Shur v Unitrin: a contradictory IME report defeated the insurer's motion, but the provider's cross-motion also failed. No automatic payment award.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 51 published articles analyzing causation 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.
Shur v Unitrin left both sides without summary judgment. The insurer’s medical report failed, but the provider had not proved its own entitlement to payment either.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: This 2017 assigned-benefits ruling denied both parties’ motions; CPLR 3212(b) supplies the summary-judgment proof framework, while first-party benefits remain distinct from tort serious injury.
Both motions matter
In Shur v Unitrin Advantage Insurance Co., 56 Misc 3d 136(A) (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017), decided August 10, 2017, the court modified the order to deny the insurer’s dismissal motion. It left the denial of the provider’s cross-motion intact.
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 affirmed report from the doctor who performed the IME contained conflicting explanations: partial accident-related causation and pre-existing degeneration. The MRI report he reviewed did not describe degeneration, and he did not indicate that he had reviewed the operative report. The insurer therefore failed to make its initial showing.
The provider separately failed to establish the required untimely-denial or legally deficient-denial basis for its cross-motion. Defeating the insurer’s proof was not itself a payment judgment.
What the report failed to explain
The published opinion describes an IME report and evaluates its defects together. It names neither a formal ‘Shur test’ nor the examining doctor. Its record-specific reasoning does not establish a universal surgical-document checklist. Jason’s terminology and reviewer identification below are his original commentary, not findings verified by the opinion.
The governing motion framework is CPLR 3212(b). The claim seeks first-party benefits under Insurance Law 5102(b), not a finding that the patient crossed the tort serious-injury threshold.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2017 comment follows. His proposed test and named-reviewer identification are retained as historical observations; the published opinion verifies neither that formal test nor the doctor’s identity.
The above raise two issues: examination of operative report and examination of the MRI report play. Both of these documents play a critical role in whether a peer doctor’s causation analysis (who opines that surgery is not related to the accident) is valid. I sense a lot of causation peer reviews will not survive the Vladamir Shur test.
*** It was a Thomas Nipper peer review **
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Selective: the insurer’s insufficient affidavit and the hospital’s judgment
- Campbell: unanswered shoulder findings and treatment cessation
- Vargas: before-and-after knee MRIs and a triable causal issue
- McDonald: speculative causal proof after a jury verdict
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
51 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation 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
New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
Learn how to prove causation in NY personal injury cases. Expert analysis of Parisien v Allstate case and causation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
Affirmed, Reversed, and Modified on Summary Judgment: Key Causation Lessons
Valentin v Pomilla: why unanswered degenerative findings defeated causation proof, with later Perl guidance and the 2026 serious-injury change.
Jan 25, 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
Causation not proved
Bobbio v Amboy Bus: an unsupported aggravation opinion failed to explain prior cervical disability; a prior injury alone does not decide causation.
Oct 27, 2016
Absence of a business record entry = no motor vehicle accident
Expert analysis of Jesa Med. Supply v NYC Transit Authority and business records evidence. Learn how absent records affect personal injury cases in NY.
Feb 15, 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 causation 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.
