Key Takeaway
Court rules that simply denying receipt of an IME notice letter isn't enough to defeat summary judgment in no-fault insurance cases without additional evidence.
Conclusory Denial of IME Receipt: Not Enough to Defeat Summary Judgment
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a crucial component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law. When insurance companies schedule these examinations, they must provide proper notice to the injured party. However, what happens when someone claims they never received the IME notice? According to recent court decisions, simply stating “I didn’t get the letter” isn’t sufficient to create a viable defense.
This issue frequently arises in no-fault litigation where healthcare providers (or their assignors) fail to appear for scheduled IMEs. Insurance companies often use these no-show situations as grounds to deny ongoing benefits, leading to disputes about whether proper notice was actually provided. The legal standard for challenging IME notices requires more than just a bare denial of receipt.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
City Care Acupuncture, PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50430(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
“In opposition, plaintiff did not deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin at 560). The assignor’s “denial of receipt, standing alone, is insufficient” (Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 230 ).”
The affidavit provided to the Assignor at the medical clinic should have a little more to it then just: “I did not receive the letter”. Just not enough.
Key Takeaway
Courts require substantive evidence beyond conclusory denials to challenge IME notice provisions. Healthcare providers and patients must present specific facts about why they didn’t receive notices, such as address changes, mail delivery issues, or problems with the mailing process itself, rather than simply claiming non-receipt to avoid summary judgment in no-fault insurance disputes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and IME notice requirements may have been subject to regulatory amendments or revised judicial interpretations regarding sufficiency of notice and standards for challenging IME scheduling. Practitioners should verify current provisions in Insurance Regulation 68 and recent appellate decisions addressing IME notice disputes and summary judgment standards in no-fault litigation.
