The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the services provided were not medically necessary (seeGlobal Liberty Ins. Co. v. W. Joseph Gorum, M.D., P.C., 143 A.D.3d 768, 39 N.Y.S.3d 193 ). The peer review reports submitted by the defendant did not establish a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services, as each doctor merely set forth a conclusory opinion that the alleged motor vehicle injuries were degenerative and chronic, and conservative treatment would suffice (seeEagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Mercury Cas. Co., 36 Misc.3d 131[A], 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51286U], 2012 WL 2877827 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists.] ). In light of the defendant's failure to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers on that issue (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Buffalo Neurosurgery Group, 172 A.D.3d 967, 101 N.Y.S.3d 359 ).
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is governed by article VI, § 9 of the New York Constitution and Court of Claims Act § 9. For tort matters, the Court of Claims' jurisdiction is limited to actions against the State and certain specified public authorities (see NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]; Erie Blvd. Hydropower, LLP v State of New York, 90 A.D.3d 1292, 1293 [3d Dept 2011]; Mooraty v State, 73 Misc.3d 1238[A] at *2 [Ct Cl 2021]). Given this limited jurisdiction, the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear suits against counties, county agencies, and county employees (Mooraty, 73 Misc.3d 1238[A] at *2).
The peer review reports submitted by the defendant did not establish a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services, as each doctor merely set forth a conclusory opinion that the alleged motor vehicle injuries were degenerative and chronic, and conservative treatment would suffice (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 36 Misc.3d 131 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51286[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists]). In light of the defendant's failure to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers on that issue (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Allstate Ins. Co. v Buffalo Neurosurgery Group, 172 A.D.3d 967).