Key Takeaway
Quality Psychological v Travelers: SIGNET reports did not establish actual IME nonattendance. Provider summary judgment was affirmed.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 150 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Quality Psychological (2013) rejected the proof offered through SIGNET on that record; it did not rule every properly supported vendor record inadmissible.
The provider’s summary judgment stood in Quality Psychological Services v Travelers, decided May 6, 2013 by the Appellate Term, Second Department. Travelers’ SIGNET affidavit and letters did not raise a factual issue about whether the assignor actually missed the IMEs.
Why these vendor reports were insufficient
SIGNET’s operations manager described the examiners’ contractual duty to report no-shows and said that the examiners had informed the vendor of these absences. Travelers argued that the resulting letters were offered only to show that it had been notified, not to prove the truth of the reports. The defense nevertheless depended on an actual failure to attend. Receiving a report and proving that it was accurate were different questions here.
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.
The ruling addresses this evidentiary submission, not every possible use of a vendor’s records. Nor was this an insurer motion that simply failed while the claim remained undecided: the provider had obtained judgment and successfully defended it on appeal. Jason’s pre-Fogel observation below is historical commentary. Fogel itself required admissible mailing and nonappearance proof while recognizing the contractual attendance condition.
Jason’s original note
Jason’s original 2013 assessment follows. His pre-Fogel comparison is historical commentary, not a holding in Quality Psychological.
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.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- T & J: sworn statements without demonstrated personal knowledge
- Three 2015 decisions on inadequate IME and EUO proof
- Compas: separate IME and fee-schedule proof problems
- Utica: the unexplained basis of a two-year recollection
- Marina: mailing and nonattendance proof that supported dismissal
- MB Advanced: conflicting affidavits about the examination location
For review of a particular claim, our no-fault defense practice can assess the notices, denials and motion papers. Contact the office to discuss the file. For broader background, see New York no-fault insurance law.
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
IME no-show denial timely where verification requested after no-show
Village Medical Supply won dismissal for the insurer: one timely denial followed claim receipt, the other followed receipt of requested verification.
Apr 19, 2014
The failure to specifically deny the lack of appearence at an IMEs proves fatal
Appeals court confirms that failing to specifically deny a patient's IME no-show in opposition papers proves fatal to a medical provider's no-fault insurance claim.
May 16, 2012
New Evidence in Reply: Understanding Motion Practice Rules in New York Courts
Valdan allowed reply documents answering a new IME-address objection. Read the chronology and the limits on making a summary judgment case in reply.
Jun 2, 2019
Do you really believe verification was complied with?
Court finds employee affidavit sufficient to create presumption that verification was mailed and received by defendant insurer, establishing triable issue of fact.
Mar 29, 2016Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What does an insurance company have to prove for an IME no-show defense in New York?
Properly supported notice and nonattendance proof are necessary. Quality Psychological concerns the nonattendance evidence offered in opposition to the provider's motion; the insurer needed more than proof that its vendor had received a report of an absence.
Why were the vendor's letters considered hearsay?
Travelers argued that the letters merely showed it had been notified. But the defense required actual nonattendance, and the vendor's account of what the examiners reported did not establish that fact on this record.
Does missing an IME really void no-fault coverage?
A properly established breach of the IME attendance condition can defeat no-fault claims, as Fogel explains. A bare allegation of a missed appointment does not establish the breach. The notice, nonattendance evidence and applicable appellate rules still matter.
Was 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.
