Partial response to verification insufficient

Doctor Goldshteyn’s action was premature because the record showed requested verification had not been received; the provider itself described a partial response on appeal. The decision does not say that all objections fail, that relevance never matters, or that providers should conceal an incomplete response.

Historical note (September 2026): Doctor Goldshteyn (2017) is a short, record-specific prematurity decision. Progressive v Elite (2018) addresses reasonable justification in master-arbitration review, while the 2026 Chapa hub explains denial timing.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

What the opinion says

Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic v Travelers Indemnity, 58 Misc 3d 136(A), was decided December 19, 2017. The provider appealed a Kings County Civil Court order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing its assigned-benefits complaint.

The Appellate Term found that the record demonstrated nonreceipt of requested verification and noted the provider’s acknowledgment that it had responded only partially. It affirmed the order.

The opinion does not list the missing documents, discuss a particular relevance objection or announce a protective-order procedure. Those matters should not be supplied as if the court had decided them.

Jason Tenenbaum’s 2017 commentary

Again, the “partial response paradigm” appears to be fatal to the medical provider. I suppose the correct record has to be established to see if an objection to verification will destroy an insurance carrier’s summary judgment motion?

Jason asked whether a different record containing an objection could change the result. That was an open question in his commentary, not a holding rejecting every objection. The decision does not establish a binary rule that every incomplete response defeats every possible objection.

An incomplete response is not a reason to obscure the record

A witness or litigant should describe what was actually supplied, what remained missing and why. Do not characterize an incomplete production as complete or omit a known gap to improve a litigation position.

The useful response is evidentiary: identify each relevant request, connect it to the supplied materials, and preserve any written explanation for items not produced. If a factual account needs clarification, it should be clarified truthfully rather than replaced with a categorical claim of compliance.

Goldshteyn’s acknowledgment mattered because it was consistent with the record’s missing verification. The opinion does not say that the words “partial response” relieve the insurer of every other burden.

Compare the earlier incomplete-response case

In Eagle Surgical’s October 2010 appeal, the provider actually attached its responses, yet the record demonstrated that all requested verification had not been supplied. The court affirmed premature dismissal there as well.

That comparison shows why the presence of attachments is not the end of the inquiry. The response must be read against the requests. It does not establish that an insurer can ask for anything whatsoever or that an immaterial omission always defeats a claim.

For the opposite evidentiary issue, Eagle Surgical’s August 2010 appeal rejected a motion where the insurer had not adequately established nonreceipt. The two Eagle decisions are distinct appeals, and neither should be treated as a complete answer to Goldshteyn’s unaddressed objection question.

What the later reasonable-justification decision adds

In Matter of Progressive Casualty Insurance (Elite Medical Supply), 162 AD3d 1471, the supplier responded within the relevant period by objecting to acquisition-cost and pricing demands. The master arbitrator vacated adverse awards, and the Fourth Department upheld that legal review.

The master arbitrator treated a timely reasonable-justification response as requiring adjudication of the objection and, if rejected, an opportunity to provide the information. The court held that the master arbitrator had not improperly conducted a new factual review.

This was not a ruling that every pricing objection was meritorious or that all no-fault denials are without prejudice. It does demonstrate why an actual, timely explanation and the forum’s procedural posture need examination. Goldshteyn’s short opinion did not decide that situation.

The regulation contains qualifications

Sections 65-3.5(o) and 65-3.8(b)(3) address verification within the applicant’s possession or control and written proof giving reasonable justification for noncompliance. They also require the request to advise the applicant of the alternatives and possible denial.

Their 120-day document framework excludes prescribed NF forms, medical examinations and EUOs. It is therefore inaccurate to say “partial response equals no response” for every item in every kind of verification demand.

The 2026 Chapa ruling subsequently rejected a mandatory 150-day cutoff for the document-verification denial at issue there. It did not resolve an objection in Goldshteyn or eliminate the need to prove the defense’s prerequisites.

Make the comparison useful before relying on it

For a present file, identify whether the dispute concerns no response, a missing item, a response allegedly lost in transit, or a reasoned objection. Keep the request, the response contents and the evidence of delivery together.

The New Way note belongs in that comparison when mailing and receipt are disputed. The Daily Medical note belongs there when the provider has not shown that verification reached the insurer before suit. Neither substitutes for examining what was actually missing.

Goldshteyn remains a useful warning against treating some production as necessarily sufficient. It should not be enlarged into advice to hide an incomplete response or a rule foreclosing objections the court never considered.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Chapa in 2019: the 150-day cutoff reversed in 2026.
• Daily Medical: failure to show verification was supplied before suit.
• Eagle Surgical in August 2010: the gap in nonreceipt proof.
• Viviane Etienne in 2013: separate verification and fee-schedule outcomes.
• New Way: mailing evidence and two different claim results.
• Eagle Surgical in October 2010: an attached but incomplete response.
• Compas: document requests separated from missed examinations.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.