An IME no-show case from the 9th and 10th

The insurer won its Nassau County IME no-show appeal in East 75th Street Diagnostic Imaging v New York Central Mutual. The court accepted separate evidence of scheduling-letter mailing, nonappearance and denial mailing. The opinion explains that record; it does not rank the First and Second Departments from “strict” to “lenient.”

Historical note — Last reviewed: September 2026. This March 2012 Nassau County appeal accepted the three proof showings before it; later Gaines (2025) distinguishes pre-claim notices and timely-disclaimer issues in the First Department, as explained in the IME directory.

Identify the correct East 75th Street opinion

The relevant decision is 2012 NY Slip Op 50564(U), 35 Misc 3d 126(A), decided March 28, 2012, by the Appellate Term, Second Department, for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts. It reversed the denial of the insurer’s summary-judgment motion in Nassau County District Court and granted dismissal.

There is a companion decision numbered 50565(U), with the same caption, date and reported-volume citation. That companion refers back to 50564 for its reasoning. The scheduling-company and doctor proof discussed in this historical post appears in 50564. Distinguishing the two helps a reader reach the actual explanation rather than a one-paragraph companion disposition.

The two appeals also came from different District Court orders. The reasoned decision concerns the order entered October 5, 2010, in appeal 2011-127 N C. The companion concerns an order entered November 22, 2010, in appeal 2011-143 N C. Matching the appeal number and order date prevents the shared caption from obscuring which record the court discussed.

That is especially helpful when a citation database returns both cases under 35 Misc 3d 126(A). Read the slip-opinion number, not just the reporter citation. The linked reasoned opinion supplies the evidentiary explanation; the companion adopts it rather than setting out a different test.

Three different evidentiary jobs

The insurer submitted an affidavit from an employee of National Claims Evaluations, Inc., the company retained to schedule the IMEs. The court accepted its account of standard office practices as proof that the notices were sent.

The doctors who were to perform the examinations supplied affidavits and an affirmation establishing nonappearance. Separate office-practice proof established timely mailing of the denials. The provider’s remaining arguments lacked merit or were improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

The opinion does not reproduce each affidavit, prescribe a required number of pages, or say an outside vendor is more credible because it is independent of the insurer. NCEI’s involvement identifies the source of the accepted mailing proof. It is not a judicial endorsement of third-party vendors as a class.

Jason’s original comparison

Jason closed his April 2012 note with this observation:

Compare this with a typical First Department per curiam construing Unitrin.

That is an invitation to compare the opinions. The more useful comparison now is the particular issue each court reached: whether the notice was properly requested and mailed, whether absence was proved, and whether a denial-timing defense was necessary in that court.

Lucas later accepted a physician and employee’s affidavits in the First Department and held timely disclaimer unnecessary for the established no-show defense. Acosta, also in the First Department, denied the insurer summary judgment because the record did not establish compliance with the applicable examination-request time frames. Those different results cannot be reduced to one department demanding less proof about everything.

Scheduling, mailing and attendance are not interchangeable

A letter may exist without proof that it was sent. A properly mailed notice may still raise a question about the requested examination or its timing. Proof that the claimant did not attend does not, by itself, establish that the insurer made a proper demand.

For a file comparison, read the appointment date and location, the insurer’s receipt dates, the correspondence actually sent, the mailing foundation and the attendance evidence together. Then identify the issue the opponent raised in the motion papers. That is an organizational method, not a claim that the East 75th Street court required a particular checklist or rejected any specific address.

Radiology Today is a useful earlier example of separate vendor and examiner evidence. Quality Psychological and Arco Medical supplies later examples, including the limited claim branch addressed in Arco. Linking those records lets a reader follow the evidentiary issue through the archive without treating each case as a new statement of the whole no-fault system.

The timing question has more than one clock

This opinion accepted timely-denial proof. It should not be turned into a universal statement that every IME no-show defense is lost unless the denial follows the missed appointment within a single fixed period.

Nationwide General v Gaines, 237 AD3d 411 (1st Dept 2025), concerned notices sent before claims were received. The court distinguished that setting from post-claim verification requirements and did not require a timely disclaimer of the established no-show defense.

That later case does not rewrite the facts of East 75th Street or decide every dispute in another department. It makes the chronology worth preserving. A reader reviewing a current claim should identify the governing forum and when each relevant form or claim reached the insurer before importing a time calculation.

Reasonableness and preservation still deserve their own analysis

Center for Orthopedic Surgery addresses a reasonableness challenge and the absence of competent proof that the assignor had counsel for the no-fault claim. It does not abolish mailing requirements. Preferred Ortho declined to reach an apartment-number objection newly raised on appeal. It does not establish that apartment numbers can never matter.

For a distinct question about delayed sworn proof, the 2026 GC Chiropractic discussion concerns an EUO attorney’s affirmation, not the IME doctors in this case. Its relevance is comparative: identify what the witness knew and what the later court actually accepted.

The result in East 75th Street remains a useful historical example of a successful motion. The connected records explain its boundaries without adding an unsupported promise about the outcome of another insurer’s file.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

The IME no-show case directory connects notice, attendance, timing and procedural decisions:

• Radiology Today: who supplied the mailing and nonappearance evidence
• Lucas: physician and employee evidence in the First Department
• Center for Orthopedic Surgery: reasonableness and proof of representation
• Quality Psychological and Arco: proof subjects, not an affidavit headcount
• Preferred Ortho: an address objection first raised on appeal
• GC Chiropractic (2025): a later EUO affirmation and the time-lapse objection

For review of a particular no-fault claim or motion record, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. and read about our no-fault defense practice.