Why Trust This Analysis
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.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, one of the most contentious issues involves Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) and what happens when patients fail to appear. Insurance companies routinely schedule these examinations to evaluate the medical necessity of ongoing treatment, but when patients don’t show up, insurers often use this as grounds to deny claims or seek summary judgment.
The evidentiary requirements for proving an IME no-show have evolved significantly through case law. A critical development came with the Alrof v. Safeco decision, which established that insurance companies must present evidence from someone with personal knowledge of the non-appearance - not just form letters or generic affidavits. This requirement has created new challenges for insurers seeking to defend against New York No-Fault Insurance Law claims.
The personal knowledge standard means that insurers can’t simply rely on clerical workers who process paperwork but weren’t present at the scheduled examination. Instead, they need testimony from someone who was actually there and witnessed the no-show, such as the examining physician or office staff who were present during the scheduled appointment time.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Hertz Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50902(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Since defendant did not submit evidence from anyone with personal knowledge of plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearances, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ).”
Was this result ordained by Alfrof v. Safeco? If it is, then the future of “personal knowledge” is just not looking too promising.
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates how the Alrof v. Safeco personal knowledge requirement is being applied consistently across New York courts. Insurance companies can no longer rely on generic documentation to prove IME no-shows - they must present testimony from individuals who actually witnessed the non-appearance. This trend suggests that proving IME non-compliance will become increasingly challenging for insurers, potentially shifting the balance in no-fault litigation toward healthcare providers.
Legal Update (February 2026): The evidentiary standards and procedural requirements for establishing IME non-appearance have continued to evolve since this 2013 analysis, particularly regarding what constitutes sufficient “personal knowledge” and acceptable forms of documentation. Practitioners should verify current Appellate Division interpretations and any updates to Insurance Department regulations governing IME procedures and proof requirements.
Related Articles
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
Unsure
Alleviation v Maya: the insurer's motion failed because timely IME-letter mailing was not established. The 2015 appeal did not award the provider benefits.
Aug 24, 2015
Medical provider cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense through stating “discovery is outstanding”
Medical providers cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense by claiming outstanding discovery. NY appellate court rules on summary judgment standards.
Sep 2, 2013
Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Center for Orthopedic Surgery addressed reasonable IME requests and proof of representation. Mailing still matters; Jason's 2011 prediction is kept in context.
Mar 30, 2011
IME no show trial defense – reversed
Appellate Term reverses trial court ruling that prevented insurance company from defending IME no-show case, clarifying that denied summary judgment motions don't preclude trial...
Jun 10, 2017Was 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.
