Neomy Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50769(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“Since the affidavit by plaintiff’s supervising physician failed to justify with specificity the additional studies, it did not rebut the conclusions set forth in the peer review report. Thus, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).”
Compare this to: Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group, 27 Misc.3d 129(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)(“In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted, among other things, a letter of medical necessity sworn to by the psychologist who had examined plaintiff’s assignor, which was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services rendered”
1) Does a treating doctor’s affidavit need to have less in it than a plaintiff peer doctor?
2) Has the quanta of evidence necessary to raise an issue of fact increased in two years since Quality v. Mercury?
I do not have an answer.
