Key Takeaway
Court rejects SIGNET vendor testimony as hearsay in proving IME no-shows, highlighting evidence requirements post-Fogel in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 50750(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“The affidavit further states that, in this case, after each of the dates on which an IME was scheduled, the assigned healthcare professional “informed” SIGNET that plaintiff’s assignor had not appeared. Defendant also attached letters from SIGNET to defendant stating that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled IMEs. In its brief, defendant argues, in effect, that it had been “notified” that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for IMEs and that the letters from SIGNET are not hearsay because the “statement” of the healthcare professional was being proffered in this case only to prove that the statement was made, not for its truth. However, in order to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant must demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor actually failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for duly scheduled IMEs, and defendant failed to do so.
It was a novel attempt to prove a no-show through the vendor. Pre-Fogel, it would have worked. But for the last 7 years, this is not necessarily the way to go about making your case. The court was correct on this one.
Related Articles
- IME No-Show – Personal Knowledge
- IME no-show with statement regarding quantum of proof regarding the “no-show”
- Alrof v. Safeco – its first application
- An attorney’s statement regarding “he did not show up” is sufficient to support EUO defense
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and IME scheduling procedures may have undergone revisions, particularly regarding documentation requirements for non-appearances and vendor reporting protocols. Additionally, appellate decisions subsequent to Quality Psychological Services may have further refined the evidentiary standards for establishing IME non-compliance. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law when addressing IME no-show issues.
