Key Takeaway
Court rules improper IME scheduling letters from third-party MCN to defendant instead of claimant failed to toll no-fault insurer's payment deadline.
Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 50887(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“During oral argument, the Civil Court granted defendant leave to submit a supplemental affidavit with respect to the mailing of defendant’s denial of claim form. By order entered April 1, 2009, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.
This appeal by plaintiff ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 ). Defendant did not send IME scheduling letters to plaintiff’s assignor. Rather, defendant utilized a third party, Medical Consultants Network (MCN), to schedule IMEs on behalf of defendant. The letters upon which defendant relies were sent by MCN and addressed to defendant, not plaintiff’s assignor, and stated that the purpose of the letters was to “confirm” that defendant had requested examinations of plaintiff’s assignor on specified dates. MCN’s customer service representative averred that MCN had sent a “carbon copy” of this letter to plaintiff’s assignor. Contrary to defendant’s contention, such letters were not proper requests for verification which tolled defendant’s time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claim (Insurance Department Regulation § 65-3.8).”
Mistakes happen. We are all guilty of them. Clearly, the wrong letters were placed in the MSJ, Defendant accidentally won and now the defendant is being called on it. I would have settled this during the CAMP conference, paid the settlement myself and told the client: “sorry”.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME no-show defenses and their sufficiency requirements
- When IME scheduling letters fail to meet legal standards
- How improper IME notification can undermine insurance defenses
- Requirements for proving assignor representation in IME cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, Insurance Department Regulation § 65-3.8 governing IME scheduling requirements and verification procedures may have been amended or superseded. Additionally, procedural rules regarding supplemental affidavits and summary judgment practice under CPLR 5501 may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and court rules when addressing IME scheduling deficiencies and tolling requirements.
