Key Takeaway
Court rules that properly mailed IME notices to both assignor and attorney, followed by patient no-show, warrants summary dismissal of no-fault claim.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a crucial component of New York’s no-fault insurance system, allowing insurance companies to verify the medical necessity and extent of injuries claimed by accident victims. When an insurance carrier schedules an IME, proper notice requirements must be met, and the claimant’s failure to appear can have serious consequences for their no-fault benefits claim.
In the context of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, insurance companies often use IME no-shows as grounds for denying claims or seeking summary dismissal of lawsuits. However, the success of such defenses typically hinges on whether the insurer can demonstrate it properly notified the claimant of the examination. This creates an ongoing tension between insurance carriers seeking to verify claims and healthcare providers trying to secure payment for legitimate medical services.
The procedural requirements for IME notices have been the subject of extensive litigation, with courts examining everything from mailing procedures to the sufficiency of notice content. Understanding these requirements is essential for both providers seeking reimbursement and insurers defending against no-show claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51677(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2011).
“defendant’s submissions established prima facie that it properly mailed initial and follow-up notices of independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the assignor and her attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear”
I would not read too much into the bolded language. I believe there is case law out there that only requires it to be mailed to the assignor. Still, this opens a door (perhaps) for the eventual argument that you know will be made.
Key Takeaway
While this case suggests that notice was sent to both the patient and attorney, established precedent typically only requires proper mailing to the assignor themselves. The court’s specific mention of both recipients may create future opportunities for arguments about enhanced notice requirements, though the current legal standard remains focused on notice to the patient. For cases involving IME mailing disputes, the key issue remains demonstrating proper delivery procedures rather than expanded recipient lists.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2011, New York’s IME notice requirements and procedural standards may have been modified through regulatory amendments, updated Insurance Department guidance, or evolving case law interpretations. Practitioners should verify current notice provisions, timing requirements, and dismissal standards under the most recent no-fault regulations and judicial precedents.
