Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 150 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.
No-fault insurance disputes often hinge on procedural requirements, and one of the most critical involves Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). When insurance companies schedule IMEs and patients fail to appear, the burden shifts dramatically in subsequent litigation. This 2012 Appellate Term decision from Continental Medical demonstrates a fundamental principle: medical providers must address IME no-show allegations head-on or risk losing their claims entirely.
The case illustrates how New York No-Fault Insurance Law creates specific procedural hurdles that can make or break a provider’s ability to recover benefits. Understanding these requirements is crucial for both medical providers seeking reimbursement and insurers defending against claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Continental Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50844(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012)
“The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 , lv denied 17 NY3d 705 ; cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 ). In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto (see Unitrin at 560).”
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.
Key Takeaway
When an insurance company establishes proper IME notice and claims a patient failed to appear, medical providers cannot simply ignore these allegations in their opposition papers. The failure to specifically deny the no-show allegation, as seen in cases like Unitrin, creates a fatal procedural defect that allows insurers to obtain summary judgment dismissing the entire claim.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments that may affect IME procedures, notice requirements, and the burden of proof standards for establishing non-appearance defenses. Additionally, appellate courts have continued to refine the procedural requirements for both scheduling IMEs and responding to non-appearance allegations. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law developments when handling IME-related disputes.
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
When an IME Went Wrong: Can No-Fault Insurers Be Liable for Examiner Negligence?
New York court holds no-fault insurers may face liability when IME physicians injure claimants, analyzing negligent selection and supervision of independent contractors.
Jun 11, 2013
IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
Learn your rights regarding diagnostic testing during Independent Medical Examinations in New York. Expert guidance for Long Island and Nassau County claimants.
Nov 28, 2009
Maya again loses their no show cases
Three Maya Assurance decisions reversed insurer summary judgment for inadequate IME-notice mailing proof. Compare the actual findings and related cases.
Oct 27, 2016
IME letters do not need to be sent to provider
Court clarifies that insurance companies don't need to notify healthcare providers when scheduling Independent Medical Examinations under New York No-Fault law.
May 27, 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.
