In A.R. Medical Art, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Auto, 11 Misc 3d 1075[A], 815 NYS2d 493, 2006 NY Slip Op 50260[U] (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2006), the plaintiff offered no testimony to rebut Dr. Cole but rather the parties stipulated into evidence the letter of medical necessity for the NCV/EMG from a doctor employed by the assignee's medical office. The court noted that the positions between the treating physician and Dr. Cole were contradictory and that the assignee's doctor had used the electro-diagnostic testing in light of the patient's complaints to make an exact diagnosis, locate a possible lesion, determine the extent of injury and exclude possible conditions. The court ruled that: "in the face of a course of treatment that has not been shown to have no medical purpose or performed towards no medical objective, this Court is not prepared to second guess a treating doctor who decides that a medical test is necessary for his/her medical diagnosis and treatment."