The electrodiagnostic service was not medically appropriate

Cappello v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 51415(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2017)

(1) “At trial, Dr. Notabartolo testified that in his opinion the services provided by plaintiff, specifically, electromyography and nerve conduction velocity diagnostic testing, were not medically necessary because there was no indication of a “diagnostic dilemma” that would warrant such testing. The witness explained that the assignor was not neurologically deteriorating and was responding to chiropractic treatment. Dr. Notabartolo’s peer review report reaching the same conclusion was also stipulated into evidence.”

(2) “Dr. Notabartolo’s testimony, which the court expressly found credible, demonstrated a factual basis and a medical rationale for his determination that there was no medical necessity for the services at issue here (see New Horizon Surgical Ctr., L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 139, 2016 NY Slip Op 51125 ). Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to present his own evidence of medical necessity (see West Tremont Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 131, 2006 NY Slip Op 51871 ). Plaintiff, however, called no witnesses to rebut defendant’s evidence. In these circumstances, plaintiff was not entitled to judgment in its favor (see All Is. [*2]Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 142, 2011 NY Slip Op 52227 ; Specialty Surgical Servs. v Travelers Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 134, 2010 NY Slip Op 50715 ). Accordingly, we reverse and direct entry of judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.”

The impetus to filing this appeal was the report from the attorney stating that the peer was credible  but Defendant did not meet its burden.  This caused me to obtain the transcript.  As this was an EMG/NCV case and the expert gave two of 3 rationales for finding the service not appropriate, it seemed like a candidate for appeal.  Except for All Is. Med Care, it looks like my brief made its way into the per curiam opinion.

Related Articles

• Civil Court Decisions in No-Fault Insurance: When Legal Reasoning Goes Wrong
• Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
• The Appellate Division discusses how an expert becomes competent to testify about the standard of care in a specific area of practice
• Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law