Key Takeaway
Analysis of Infinity Health v Redland Insurance case where insurer failed to prove proper IME scheduling due to incorrect zip code on mailing notices.
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.
Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Redland Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50751(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“On appeal, defendant’s sole argument is that it raised a triable issue of fact and made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting sufficient proof that it had properly mailed the IME scheduling letters and that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear. Regarding the address to which the IME scheduling letters were mailed, defendant alleges that “he IME scheduling notices were mailed to the assignor’s attorney and copied to the assignor at the address (including zip code) that the assignor provided.” However, a review of the file reveals that plaintiff’s assignor’s zip code was listed as 10469 on both plaintiff’s claim form and the assignment of benefits submitted by plaintiff to the court in support of its motion for summary judgment, while the IME scheduling letters and the postmarked mailing logs submitted by defendant list the zip code as 10468. Only proof of proper mailing gives rise to a presumption of receipt (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 ). Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest that plaintiff’s assignor was represented by the attorney to whom the IME scheduling letters were also sent. Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled (cf. Star Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 131, 2006 NY Slip Op 50344 ).”
Investigation reveals that the NF-2, which listed the zipcode 10469, was not included in the motion papers. It seems that because of this, the court then held that Defendant failed to present any evidence that the letters were sent to the PI attorney. Note that the App. Term First Department places the burden on the Medical provider to prove that the letters were not sent to the PI attorney or that there was a PI attorney that should have received the IME letters.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- IME no-show victory case analysis
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations governing IME scheduling procedures and notice requirements may have been amended, including potential updates to Insurance Regulation 68 and related provisions regarding proper mailing standards and presumptions of receipt. Practitioners should verify current regulatory requirements for IME scheduling notices and mailing procedures.
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
Lincoln General citing
Compas v Praetorian awarded the provider its third claim while dismissing seven others. Read the 2015 denial ruling beside Unitrin and Gaines.
Nov 28, 2015
Punted.
Second Department punts on Unitrin issue in Westchester v. GEICO, noting coverage challenge improperly raised on appeal while awaiting clarity from other courts.
Jan 30, 2014
Donde esta Unitrin?
Vincent Medical accepted IME mailing, nonattendance and denial proof. Jason's Unitrin comparison concerns coverage preclusion, not address verification.
Sep 26, 2011
Mailing to the attorney
Court rules insurance company failed to provide adequate IME notice when letter to insured was sent to wrong address, despite proper notice to attorney.
May 14, 2018Was 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.
