Trimed Med. Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 52057(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
This case represents nothing new. I like, however, the nomenclature that is found in the bold portion of the holding:
“the affidavit submitted by the doctor who was to perform the IMEs of plaintiff’s assignor established that the assignor failed to appear for IMEs in the doctor’s office, which was located at the address set forth in the IME scheduling letters”
**I thank a frequent reader who pointed out that my original title erroneously stated “EUO” as opposed to “IME”. The appropriate change has been made.
2 Responses
I am putting this question to the test as we speak. In my view, the medical expert mills have taken this too far. Pursuant to the rules of evidence as interpreted outside no-fault law, some of the aff’s I’ve seen clearly would not pass muster.
I tend to agree – on both sides. I also think the First Department is going to take a more probing view on some of these issues, as opposed to the Second Department.