<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Nova Chiropractic Services, P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Printz &amp; Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Emilia I. Rutigliano of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered January 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,197.90.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant's expert witness and granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,197.90.</p><p>Defendant's expert medical witness, who was not the expert who had prepared the peer review report upon which defendant's denial of claim form had been based, should have been permitted to testify as to his opinion regarding the lack of medical necessity of the services at issue (<a href="../2012/2012_50349.htm" target="_blank"><i>see e.g. Park Slope Med. &amp; Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co.</i>, 34 Misc 3d 154</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50349[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2012]). While the expert witness's testimony should be limited to the basis for the denial as set forth in the peer review report (<i>see id.</i>), it is plaintiff's burden to make an appropriate objection in the <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>event the testimony goes beyond the basis for the denial and, if necessary, produce the peer review report (<a href="../2017/2017_51895.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co.</i>, 58 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51895[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2017]; <a href="../2017/2017_51264.htm" target="_blank"><i>Promed Orthocare Supply, Inc. v Geico Ins. Co.</i>, 57 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51264[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2017]). We note that an insurer cannot use a peer review report to prove its defense of lack of medical necessity or to impermissibly bolster its expert's testimony (<i>see e.g. Promed Orthocare Supply, Inc.</i>, 57 Misc 3d 135[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51264[U]; <a href="../2013/2013_23088.htm" target="_blank"><i>A-Quality Med. Supply v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.</i>, 39 Misc 3d 24</a> [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 23, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>