Proving an IME No-Show: Doctor's Affidavit Held Sufficient in Trimed v ELRAC

Key Takeaways

• In Trimed Med. Supply v ELRAC, the Appellate Term accepted an affidavit from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs as proof that the assignor failed to appear.
• The affidavit’s strength came from a detail: the doctor’s office “was located at the address set forth in the IME scheduling letters.”
• No-show proof requires personal knowledge — someone present at the scheduled time and place who can say the claimant did not appear.
• Tying the affiant’s location to the scheduling letters closes the gap between the notice sent and the appearance missed.

No-fault insurance disputes frequently involve disagreements over whether claimants properly appeared for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). When a patient fails to show up for a scheduled IME, insurance companies must provide adequate documentation to support their denial of benefits. The question often arises: what constitutes sufficient proof of a no-show?

The Appellate Term’s decision in Trimed Med. Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc. provides clear guidance on this evidentiary standard. This case reinforces established precedent while highlighting a specific detail that strengthens the documentation requirements for proving IME non-appearance.

The Decision

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

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.

The Legal Framework

The IME is one of the basic conditions of no-fault coverage. Under 11 NYCRR Part 65, an eligible injured person must appear for medical examinations when the carrier reasonably requires them, and appearance at properly scheduled IMEs is a condition precedent to coverage. A claimant — or the provider standing in the claimant’s shoes through an assignment of benefits — who fails to appear has breached that condition, and the carrier may deny all claims arising from the loss.

To win on an IME no-show defense, a carrier must generally prove two things, each with admissible evidence:

1. Mailing of the scheduling letters. An affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the mailing, or one describing a standard office mailing practice, establishing that the IME letters were properly addressed and timely sent. This is its own battleground — see the firm’s discussion of mailing and proof of service in IME no-show cases.
2. Non-appearance. An affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the claimant did not appear at the scheduled time and place — typically the examining doctor or someone in the doctor’s office.

Trimed sits in the second category. The non-appearance affidavit came from the doctor who was to perform the examinations — the person best positioned to know whether the assignor walked through the door. What the Appellate Term’s phrasing adds is the connective tissue: the doctor’s office was located at the address set forth in the scheduling letters. That single clause links the two halves of the proof. The claimant was told to go to a specific address; the affiant was at that address; the claimant never appeared.

Why This Matters for Carriers, Providers, and Claimants

For carriers and defense counsel, the address language is a free upgrade to every no-show affidavit. A non-appearance affidavit that floats free of the scheduling letters invites the argument that the claimant may have appeared at a different (or even the correct) location while the affiant waited somewhere else. Matching the affidavit’s address to the letters forecloses it. Defense counsel drafting affidavits for examining physicians should build the clause in as boilerplate — and make sure the underlying letters actually bear that address.

For medical providers litigating assigned claims, the case maps the counterattack. If the affidavit comes from someone without personal knowledge, says nothing about the time and place of the scheduled examination, or recites an address different from the letters, the carrier’s prima facie showing has a hole. Discrepancies between scheduling letters and examination locations are not technicalities; they go to whether the claimant ever received meaningful notice of where to appear.

For claimants, the practical lesson is blunt: go to the IME. The no-show defense, properly proven, defeats every bill arising from the accident — and as this case shows, courts accept straightforward affidavit proof from the examining doctor. A claimant with a scheduling conflict should reschedule through the carrier in writing, not simply skip the appointment.

Practice Pointers

• Match the addresses. The non-appearance affidavit should expressly state that the affiant’s office is the location identified in the scheduling letters, and the letters should be exhibits.
• Use the right affiant. The examining doctor, or office staff responsible for logging appearances, has personal knowledge; a claims examiner reviewing the file does not.
• Prove both no-shows. Carriers typically schedule a second IME after the first non-appearance; the affidavit should cover each scheduled date.
• Pair it with mailing proof. The best non-appearance affidavit is worthless without admissible proof that the scheduling letters were mailed to the correct address.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if you miss an IME in a New York no-fault case?

Appearance at properly scheduled IMEs is a condition precedent to no-fault coverage. Missing the examinations — typically two scheduled appointments — lets the carrier deny all claims arising from the accident, including bills already submitted by providers holding assignments.

Who can sign an affidavit proving an IME no-show?

Someone with personal knowledge of the non-appearance — most commonly the doctor who was scheduled to perform the examination, as in Trimed v ELRAC, or office personnel responsible for tracking appearances at the scheduled time and place.

Why does the address in the IME scheduling letter matter?

Because the proof must connect the notice to the no-show. An affidavit stating the claimant failed to appear at the doctor’s office, “which was located at the address set forth in the IME scheduling letters,” establishes that the claimant was told exactly where to go and did not appear there.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone several amendments, particularly regarding IME scheduling procedures and documentation requirements under 11 NYCRR Part 65. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding acceptable proof of non-appearance and any updated evidentiary standards that may affect IME dispute proceedings.

Related Resources

• Another proof of the no show
• IME no-show with statement regarding quantum of proof regrding the “no-show”
• IME no-show from the First Department
• IME no-shows in New York no-fault cases — the firm’s IME no-show cluster hub
• IME no-show: it was not mailed — mailing and proof of service
• Browse the firm’s Legal Encyclopedia for more no-fault doctrine
• No-fault defense practice page