Key Takeaway
Court reverses order in IME no-show case, establishing key precedent for no-fault insurance claims when proper notice procedures are followed and examinations missed.
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) play a crucial role in New York No-Fault Insurance Law, serving as a mechanism for insurance carriers to verify the medical necessity and extent of injuries claimed by accident victims. When an Eligible Injured Person (EIP) fails to appear for a scheduled IME, insurance companies can deny ongoing benefits—but only if they follow proper procedural requirements.
The case of VE Med. Care, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. highlights the fundamental elements required for a successful IME no-show denial. This appellate decision demonstrates how courts evaluate whether insurance carriers have met their burden of proof when denying claims based on a patient’s failure to attend an independent medical examination.
Unlike cases where IME letters do not need to be sent to provider, this situation involved direct communication with the patient. The procedural requirements for IME scheduling and the consequences of non-attendance have been refined through numerous court decisions, creating a framework that protects both insurers and injured parties. This case contributes to the body of law surrounding medical necessity determinations and proper notice procedures.
Understanding these requirements is essential for medical providers, insurance companies, and injured parties navigating the no-fault system. The court’s decision reinforces that when proper procedures are followed, insurance carriers have legitimate grounds to deny benefits based on IME non-attendance.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
VE Med. Care, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51074(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
(1) Letters were mailed; (2) The EIPs did not show; and (3) The denial was timely. Order reversed.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes a clear three-part test for successful IME no-show denials in New York no-fault cases. Insurance carriers must demonstrate they properly mailed examination notices, that the eligible injured persons failed to appear, and that any resulting benefit denials were issued within statutory timeframes. The appellate court’s reversal indicates that when these procedural requirements are met, lower courts should uphold the insurance carrier’s right to deny benefits. This outcome differs from situations where IME scheduling was not properly documented, reinforcing the importance of maintaining detailed records of all communications and procedural compliance in no-fault insurance administration.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s IME procedures and notice requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments, updated insurance department guidelines, or subsequent court decisions affecting no-show denial protocols. Practitioners should verify current IME scheduling requirements, notice provisions, and procedural standards under the most recent New York No-Fault regulations and case law.
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
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021NF-3 is the operative document
Court ruling confirms NF-3 forms trigger 15-day IME request deadline, and patient no-shows at two scheduled exams justify insurance coverage disclaimer.
Mar 22, 2021Unsure
Court reverses Maya Assurance IME no-show case due to failure to prove timely mailing of scheduling letters, highlighting ongoing issues with IME procedures.
Aug 24, 2015Medical provider cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense through stating “discovery is outstanding”
Medical providers cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense by claiming outstanding discovery. NY appellate court rules on summary judgment standards.
Sep 2, 2013Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Court ruling establishes "reasonableness" as new standard for challenging IME requests in NY no-fault cases, shifting burden from mailing proof to proving unreasonable demands.
Mar 30, 2011IME no-show/ failure to object during claims stage is fatal to later objection
Court ruling confirms that failing to respond to IME requests during claims stage prevents later objections to their reasonableness in no-fault insurance cases.
Jun 10, 2017Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Independent Medical Examination (IME)?
An IME is a medical examination conducted by a doctor chosen by the insurance company to evaluate the claimant's injuries and treatment. In no-fault cases, insurers use IMEs to determine whether ongoing treatment is medically necessary, whether the injuries are causally related to the accident, and whether the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. The results of an IME can form the basis for a claim denial or cut-off of benefits.
Can I refuse to attend an IME?
No. Under New York's no-fault regulations, attending an IME when properly scheduled is a condition precedent to receiving benefits. However, the insurer must follow specific scheduling procedures — including providing reasonable notice and accommodating certain scheduling conflicts. If the insurer fails to properly schedule the IME or you have a legitimate reason for missing it, the resulting denial may be challenged.
How should I prepare for an Independent Medical Examination?
Be honest and thorough when describing your symptoms, limitations, and treatment history. Arrive on time with photo ID and be prepared for a physical examination that may test your range of motion and functional abilities. The IME doctor works for the insurance company and may spend limited time with you, so clearly communicate your ongoing symptoms. Your attorney can advise you on what to expect and review the IME report for accuracy afterward.
What is maximum medical improvement (MMI) in no-fault cases?
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) means the point at which your condition has stabilized and further treatment is unlikely to produce significant improvement. When an IME doctor determines you have reached MMI, the insurer may cut off further no-fault benefits. However, reaching MMI does not necessarily mean you have fully recovered — you may still have permanent limitations. Your treating physician can dispute the MMI finding through a detailed rebuttal affirmation.
Can I challenge an IME doctor's findings in my no-fault case?
Yes. If an IME results in a denial or cut-off of benefits, your treating physician can submit a sworn affirmation rebutting the IME findings point by point. The rebuttal should reference specific clinical findings, objective test results, and range-of-motion measurements that contradict the IME conclusions. At arbitration or trial, the fact-finder weighs both the IME report and the treating physician's opinion. An experienced no-fault attorney can identify weaknesses in the IME report.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.