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.
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:
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.
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.
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
Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Center for Orthopedic Surgery addressed reasonable IME requests and proof of representation. Mailing still matters; Jason's 2011 prediction is kept in context.
Mar 30, 2011
IME no-show/ failure to object during claims stage is fatal to later objection
Parisien rejected a late reasonableness objection where no response to IME requests was alleged. It does not cure defective notice or authorize skipping exams.
Jun 10, 2017
The backtracking of Unitrin
Long Island court cases analyzing IME scheduling compliance under Insurance Department Regulations, examining when no-show denials fail due to improper timing requirements.
Oct 6, 2015
MVAIC again fails in its quest to prove the mailing of IME letters
MVAIC fails again to prove proper mailing of IME letters due to deficient affidavits lacking personal knowledge and specific procedural details.
Oct 20, 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.
