Key Takeaway
Mollo's 2020 MUA ruling turned on competing expert testimony. Read the actual trial result without treating an expert's safety concerns as a universal rule.
This article is part of our ongoing medical necessity coverage, with 170 published articles analyzing medical necessity 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.
Mollo Chiropractic lost both appeals over manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). The Appellate Term affirmed two judgments after a consolidated nonjury trial, where the insurer’s expert was more persuasive than the provider’s.
Historical note: Mollo Chiropractic (2020) upheld two trial judgments on their expert evidence; it did not announce that manipulation under anesthesia is always dangerous or medically unnecessary.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
In Mollo Chiropractic v American Commerce, decided December 23, 2020, the defense expert described MUA as aggressive and possibly dangerous. That was the expert’s theory. The court allowed the trial judge to credit it on these records; it did not establish a universal clinical rule.
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 theory included prior improvement with traditional chiropractic care and questioned whether the records justified MUA here. Describing this as a requirement that conservative care first fail changes what the opinion says.
The appellate court found no reliance on evidence outside the peer report’s scope. It also treated any error involving textbooks not in evidence as harmless because the provider identified no prejudice. Neither point dispensed with evaluating the testimony in the two claims.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical-necessity and peer-review topic hub.
- MUA guidelines and the medical showing in the 2013 note
- Another look at MUA: the 2013 archive note
- MUA trial victory: the 2018 evidence discussion
- Radiology Today: peer reports and live trial testimony
For review of a particular New York no-fault dispute, contact our 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
Medical Necessity Disputes in No-Fault Insurance
Medical necessity is the most common basis for no-fault claim denials in New York. Insurers hire peer reviewers to opine that treatment was not medically necessary, shifting the burden to providers and claimants to demonstrate otherwise. The legal standards for establishing and rebutting medical necessity — including the sufficiency of peer review reports, the qualifications of reviewing physicians, and the evidentiary burdens at arbitration and trial — are the subject of extensive case law. These articles provide detailed analysis of medical necessity litigation strategies and court decisions.
170 published articles in Medical Necessity
Keep Reading
More Medical Necessity Analysis
Another Medical Necessity?
DRD Medical defeated the insurer's motion in 2020. Compare the court's finding of a factual dispute with Jason's original criticism of the affidavit.
Apr 27, 2020
Medical Necessity Trials in New York No-Fault Cases: Burden of Proof and Expert Witness Credibility
Parkway Hospital won without a rebuttal witness in 2019. Read the credibility holding and the distinction between initial and ultimate trial burdens.
Aug 4, 2019
Expert Qualification Standards in New York No-Fault Cases: Understanding Professional Sufficiency Requirements
Learn how New York courts determine expert qualifications in no-fault insurance cases.
Mar 12, 2010
Functional ATIC/ medial necessity and fee schedule defense susbstantiated
New York court decision on medical necessity and fee schedule defenses in no-fault insurance cases, featuring expert affidavit requirements and proper coding analysis.
Jul 31, 2017
A triable issue of fact
NYU Hospital-Tisch v GEICO: the final verification response, a denial 29 days later, and why a peer-review dispute did not justify summary judgment.
Jun 4, 2014
Another substitute peer case finds it way back on remand – but the dissent is potent
Park Slope ordered a new trial in 2012. Read the substitute-expert holding, Golia's concurrence and later clarification of the trial burden of proof.
Mar 2, 2012Was 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 medical necessity 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.
