Key Takeaway
Four separate 2011 decisions granted insurers summary judgment with timely-denial proof. Compare their results with the First Department's Unitrin line.
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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: These four 2011 Second Department opinions accepted timely-denial evidence; Gaines (2025, First Department) expressly dispensed with timely-disclaimer proof on its IME coverage record, so the title is not a current statewide rule.
All four insurers won these appeals. Parkway, Triangle, Proscan and Padova were separate October 2011 decisions granting insurer summary judgment, not consolidated cases reversing insurer victories. Each opinion accepted evidence that the IME notices and denials were properly mailed and that the assignor missed the examinations.
Jason’s original note
Parkway Imaging & Diagnostic, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51853(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011).
Triangle R, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.,2011 NY Slip Op 51854(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Proscan Imaging Buffalo v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51855(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Padova Physical Rehab. Medicine, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51862(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.
What each opinion decided
Parkway and Proscan granted the carrier’s motion and denied the provider’s competing motion. Triangle and Padova likewise granted dismissal to the insurers.
The opinions describe evidence from the IME scheduling service, the examining professionals, and carrier personnel responsible for denial mailing. Their common point was that this evidence satisfied the insurer’s burden. None finds a late disclaimer or states that the insurer forfeited its defense.
The original title reflects the denial-timing question in 2011. These Second Department opinions cited Westchester/Lincoln while noting the contrasting Unitrin authority. In Gaines (2025), the First Department expressly said timely disclaimer was unnecessary for the properly noticed IME nonappearances before it.
The title alone is a poor guide to the current deadline question. The forum, scheduling chronology and coverage authority matter. These four cases provide no support for a fixed 10–15-day IME notice rule or for predictions about a provider’s litigation odds.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory.
- Harmonic: the Unitrin coverage analysis
- Village Medical: verification and timely denial after missed IMEs
- Sharp View: insufficient proof of mailing
- Urban Well and Metro 8: IME and EUO witnesses
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the scheduling letters, claim chronology and motion papers.
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
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, 2013
Westchester v. Lincoln with a "cf" to Unitrin
Alrof v Nationwide: timely denials and IME proof supported judgment. The Westchester-Unitrin citation concerns preclusion, not insurer misconduct.
Aug 5, 2011
Second IME Requests: When New York Courts Refuse to Compel Another Exam
When an insurance company requests a second IME in New York, courts require proof of necessity. Kolodziejski v Jaskolka explains the CPLR 3121 standard.
Nov 11, 2017
No-show troubles
Three 2015 no-show decisions distinguish IME proof from a provider EUO and explain why neither side obtained summary judgment.
Nov 17, 2015Was 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.
