IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Legal Update (September 2026): DFS replaced the prescribed NF-10 effective August 15, 2026; that amendment does not repeal the duplicate-form requirement in 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c)(1) or turn this 2012 decision into a general mailing shortcut.

The narrow duplicate-mailing issue

Brooklyn Heights Physical Therapy v New York Central Mutual, 2012 NY Slip Op 52406(U), reversed a judgment for the provider and granted the insurer dismissal. The insurer established timely mailing of IME notices, nonappearance, and timely mailing of denial forms to the provider, assignor and assignor’s attorney.

On duplicate forms, the court emphasized the argument the provider had not made: it gave no reason why those mailings failed to satisfy the regulation. Jason’s original reaction follows. His question about the result is commentary, not a finding that the regulation was repealed.

Jason’s January 2013 reaction

I am lost on this one. I feel like I am writing a matrimonial appeal again and am in utter confusion with what the court is saying. This is how it begins:

“defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered October 25, 2010 which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant’s denials were nullities because they had not been issued in duplicate”

And this how it ends:

“Defendant also submitted an affidavit by the chiropractor/acupuncturist who was to perform the IMEs which established that plaintiff’s assignor hd failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. An affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner demonstrated that denial of claim forms, which denied the claims based upon the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for the IMEs, had been timely mailed to plaintiff, plaintiff’s assignor, and plaintiff’s assignor’s attorney (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16).

Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.8 (c) (1) requires that, upon deciding to deny a claim, “the insurer shall notify the applicant or the authorized representative on the prescribed denial of claim form, in duplicate.” Plaintiff has offered no argument as to why defendant’s mailing of each denial of claim form to plaintiff, plaintiff’s assignor and plaintiff’s assignor’s attorney, respectively, does not satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law”

How does a duplicate mailing requirement get satisfied through mailing the denial to the provider, assignor and counsel for assignor? And what is weird is that this Court has previously said – in the verification context- that the letters only need to be sent to the provider if it is from him/her who information is sought. A bit confused here.

Applying the note now

The DFS regulation text still directs use of the prescribed denial form in duplicate. The 2026 amendment replaces NF-10; it does not amend the wording of section 65-3.8(c)(1). Keep the actual form and the mailing proof for each recipient; that is the record a later challenge will need.

Brooklyn Heights addressed denial forms. It did not decide that sending verification requests to several people is interchangeable with sending duplicate denials. The Brand Medical address decision presents another distinct question: whether omission of an apartment number defeated the notice shown in that record.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “in duplicate” mean for no-fault denials?

Section 65-3.8(c)(1) directs the insurer to notify the applicant or authorized representative on the prescribed denial form in duplicate. Brooklyn Heights did not remove that wording.

Can insurance companies satisfy duplicate mailing by sending to multiple parties?

The court accepted the insurer’s showing where the provider gave no argument why the three recipient mailings failed to satisfy the rule. That record-specific result should not be treated as blanket permission to ignore duplicate forms.

How should healthcare providers respond to unusual court interpretations?

Identify the actual ruling and the objection preserved on appeal. Jason’s reaction identifies a question about the reasoning; it does not establish a different legal rule.

What documentation should providers maintain for IME-related issues?

Keep the IME notices, address records, denial forms and mailing evidence. Separate proof of sending the notices from proof that the person did not attend.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the IME no-show encyclopedia hub for the case directory and the distinction between notice, attendance and denial evidence.

• Brand Medical: which address the forms supplied
• Alleviation: failure to prove timely IME mailing
• Tri-Mount: notice, absence and denial evidence
• All Borough: the three evidentiary steps
• MDJ Medical: notices and nonappearance

For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.