Two Out of Three Ain't Bad, or Is It?

For folks like Dave Barshay over at No-Fault Paradise who keep score, of the six decisions decided by the Appellate Term, Second Department, on November 26th and posted to the New York Official Reports website last Wednesday, December 1st,  four were reversals in favor of the defendant insurers' motions for summary judgment, all on lack of medical necessity grounds:

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 52059(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

Triangle R, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 52060(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 52061(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10 Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

Dynamic Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 52062(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

One was an affirmance of summary judgment to the self-insurer on the assignor's IME no-show:

Trimed Med. Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc.
2010 NY Slip Op 52057(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

And one was an affirmance of partial summary judgment to the hospital provider on a verification issue:

St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 52063(U) (App. Term, 9th & 10th Dists., decided 11/26/2010)

What does the high proportion of reversals at the Appellate Term mean?  Some might conclude that the lower courts don't know what they're doing.  Some others might conclude (and have already concluded) that the Appellate Term favors insurers on no-fault issues.  Regardless, it seems appealing to the Appellate Term has become a necessary part of the no-fault litigation process in metro New York and Long Island.