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) 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.
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.
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
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
Unsure
Alleviation v Maya: the insurer's motion failed because timely IME-letter mailing was not established. The 2015 appeal did not award the provider benefits.
Aug 24, 2015
Medical 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, 2013
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, 2017Was 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.
