Couldn't get it right the second time around

Central Radiology won summary judgment on its no-fault claim because the letters MVAIC relied on were confirmations to MVAIC, copied to the assignor, rather than proper verification requests. The May 13, 2010 decision reversed the insurer’s judgment and granted the provider’s cross-motion.

Historical note: Central Radiology (2010) rejected the particular insurer-directed confirmations as verification requests; Unitrin (2011) separately required compliant requests and proven nonattendance.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2010)

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”.

What the additional affidavit concerned

The Civil Court allowed a supplemental affidavit about mailing the denial form. The opinion does not describe that submission as an attempt to repair the IME letters.

On this record, the letters did not toll the payment deadline, and MVAIC had not challenged the provider’s prima facie case. The court remitted for interest and attorney’s fees. It did not prescribe mandatory second-person wording for all IME notices or decide that supplemental proof can never be considered.

Read this notice decision alongside Unitrin (2011): the coverage exception there rested on compliant requests and proven nonattendance. For a current file, obtain the actual letters and the mailing evidence; a vendor’s confirmation that an appointment exists does not answer what notice the assignor received.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:

• Bay LS: a name discrepancy left notice for trial
• Parisien: no response to requests and a later objection
• Vincent Medical: mailing, nonattendance and denial proof
• Acupuncture Solutions: mailing proof and the bill-timing question
• Compas v Praetorian: one untimely denial among eight claims

For review of a particular IME dispute, contact the office with the scheduling letters, mailing proof and relevant claim papers.