In Dilon Medical Supply Corp. v. NY Central Mutual Ins., 2007 NY Slip Op. 52454[U], 18 Misc. 3d 128[A], 856 N.Y.S.2d 23 (App. Term, 2d Dept. 2007) the doctor who wrote the peer review report was unavailable, hence causing the defendant's to call a re peer doctor. Plaintiff sought to preclude the re-peer doctor from testifying. The Appellate Term found that the issue before it was whether the rationale for the conclusion in the peer review report, upon which the defendant based its denial was correct. "Since the defendant sought to call a medical expert witness, who was available for cross-examination, and his testimony as to the lack of medical necessity...would be limited to the basis for the denials as set forth in the original peer review reports, the expert witness should have been permitted to testify." Id.