Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 published articles analyzing ime issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Understanding IME Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
New York No-Fault Insurance Law contains specific procedural requirements that insurers must follow when investigating claims. One area that has generated significant litigation involves the standards insurers must meet before requesting different types of examinations. A 2011 Court of Appeals decision provided important clarity on the distinction between Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath.
The case highlights a critical procedural difference that affects how no-fault insurers can investigate potentially fraudulent or questionable claims. While examinations under oath require specific objective justification under Insurance Department Regulations, IMEs operate under different standards. This distinction has practical implications for both insurers defending IME no-show cases and healthcare providers challenging examination requests.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
All County, LLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50621(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“We note that, contrary to the finding of the District Court, while Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5 (e) states that a no-fault insurer must base its request for an examination under oath upon “the application of objective standards so that there is specific objective justification supporting the use of such examination,” it does not impose such a standard on a request for an IME.”
When it comes to IME no-show cases, I must tip my hat to Unitrin. They are the Mercury of IME no-show cases.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that no-fault insurers have greater flexibility in requesting IMEs compared to examinations under oath. The court clarified that while objective criteria must support requests for examinations under oath, IME requests are not subject to the same stringent justification requirements. This ruling provides insurers with important procedural advantages when investigating claims through medical necessity reviews.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post was published, 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 and related examination provisions may have been amended through regulatory updates or Insurance Department guidance. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have further refined the standards and procedures governing IME requests versus examinations under oath. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language and recent case law developments when advising on IME procedural requirements.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More IME issues Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
Leave denied
Court denies leave in Unitrin v Bayshore Physical Therapy case, highlighting challenges healthcare providers face under current no-fault insurance regulations.
Jun 28, 2011
IME no-show – it was not mailed
Court finds insufficient proof of IME mailing in no-fault case, highlighting importance of proper documentation when claiming patient no-show for scheduled examinations.
Sep 21, 2017
Personal knowledge and other appropriate means
Acupuncture Pain Management v Kemper: personal knowledge, office practices and proof of missed IMEs, with a separate Compas EUO comparison.
Oct 30, 2015
DJ denial reversed: A misspelling can be excused, and notice to the attorney is enough
DJ denial reversed: Court excuses IME notice misspelling, rules proper service to attorney sufficient for no-fault insurance claim coverage denial.
Nov 12, 2013Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a ime issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
