IME no-show substantiatedDecember 26, 2014

AP Orthopedic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51794(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s cross motion and held that the only remaining issue for trial was the propriety of defendant’s IME scheduling letters. Defendant argues on appeal that its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, we find that defendant’s IME scheduling letters comply with the No-Fault Regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e]).”

The objection to the letters in this case was that the letters advised the Claimant that they should call within 48 hours if they wished to cancel or reschedule their appointment.  The Civil Court found this reasoning persuasive; the Appellate Term felt otherwise, reversed and granted Defendant summary judgment.

Leave a Reply