Another arbitration only rule bites the dust

Key Takeaways

• Medco Tech concerned medical equipment supplied after surgery and its causal relationship to an accident.
• Global Liberty relied on a peer review distinguishing degenerative disease from accident-related injury.
• The First Department vacated the judgment and award and required a new arbitral hearing.
• Its decision was expressly tied to the record and arguments before it.
• Jason’s original account explains why he challenged the rule used below; the opinion does not establish who won the eventual rehearing.

The Medco Tech decision

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Medco Tech, Inc., 170 AD3d 558 (1st Dept 2019), was decided March 21, 2019. Jason published his response two days later.

The official reporter names him as counsel for Global Liberty. The appeal concerned an award for medical equipment provided to a patient after a motor vehicle accident and surgery.

The decision’s focus was causation on the record presented. It did not announce that all post-surgical equipment lacks medical necessity or that a preexisting condition defeats every no-fault claim.

What was in the peer review?

The insurer relied on a peer review of medical records. The reviewer concluded that the condition was degenerative, not post-traumatic, and that the surgery was not medically necessary in relation to the accident.

That last distinction matters. Whether treatment has a medical purpose and whether the accident caused the need for it are different questions. The opinion addressed the relationship between this accident and the equipment claim.

Jason’s original note explains that he objected to a rule requiring the review to address the equipment itself before the causation defense could be considered. That explanation is his account of the proceedings below.

The appellate opinion supplies the narrower judicial conclusion: on the record and arguments before it, an award connecting the equipment to the accident would be irrational.

The procedural route and the actual remedy

Supreme Court denied the insurer’s motion to vacate the award and obtain a new hearing. It granted the provider’s motion to confirm. A judgment was entered against the insurer on August 29, 2016.

The First Department reversed that judgment, vacated it, granted the insurer’s motion and denied the provider’s motion. The award had to be vacated and a new hearing held.

A new hearing is not a reported final victory on every billing issue. Neither this opinion nor the original post supplies a later award establishing the ultimate payment outcome.

The firm’s explanation of de novo review and trial de novo addresses the wider terminology. Here, the words describe the new arbitral hearing ordered in this particular case.

Jason’s original appeal-selection account — March 23, 2019

The original post distinguished curiosity, dissatisfaction with fact-finding and opposition to a rule without legal support. Jason considered this case part of the third category.

I always ask myself what is it that causes me to appeal certain cases.

Some people think these appeals are personal, but this was not.

I told one of the judges I do not even care if I win or lose at the end, just apply a rational precedent.

The last excerpt is Jason’s published recollection of oral argument, not a quotation authenticated against a court transcript. It captures his stated objective without supplying an invented exchange with the bench.

The point worth preserving is the distinction between objecting to a result and objecting to the rule preventing consideration of a defense. That is more informative than treating every unsuccessful arbitration as an appeal candidate.

Comparing the coding and IME appeals

A similar concern about an excluded legal argument appears in McMahon, the CPT Assistant appeal. There, the court required consideration of incorporated coding guidance and ordered a new arbitration.

The earlier Professional Chiropractic Care case addressed a different problem: a master award relying on a denial-form error despite the IME no-show authority presented by the insurer.

The three cases share counsel and a review setting, but their issues and remedies differ. Those differences are the reason to read the individual opinions rather than infer one universal arbitration rule.

A record checklist for reading Medco Tech

For a comparison with another file, separate the following materials:

• The accident history and the medical records reviewed.
• The peer review’s actual causation analysis.
• The surgery and equipment for which payment was sought.
• The lower award and the reason for rejecting the defense.
• The master award, court papers and relief sought on appeal.

These are editorial reading prompts drawn from the dispute, not a required evidentiary formula. A peer review’s label alone does not reproduce the record the First Department evaluated.

The firm’s no-fault defense practice handles record-specific coverage and payment disputes. The Legal Encyclopedia provides wider navigation without turning this note into a competing general procedure guide.

For review of a current file, request a Free Case Review.

Last reviewed: September 2026 — editorial source check against the reported decision and original commentary. Original publication date retained. The later rehearing outcome has not been verified.