Lack of causation not established on a peer review

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.

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.