An IME that went wrong

The boundaries of insurance company liability for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) remain contested terrain in New York no-fault law. While insurers routinely schedule IMEs through third-party contractors to evaluate claimant injuries, a significant Fourth Department decision addresses what happens when IME physicians injure the very claimants they examine. This case explores whether no-fault carriers can be held liable for negligent selection and supervision of independent contractor physicians who cause harm during court-ordered medical examinations.

The traditional independent contractor doctrine shields principals from vicarious liability for contractor negligence, based on the premise that principals who lack control over contractors’ work methods should not bear responsibility for that work’s execution. However, exceptions exist when principals negligently select incompetent contractors, fail to provide adequate instructions, or inadequately supervise contractor performance. The Reynolds case tests whether these exceptions apply in the IME context, potentially exposing insurers to tort liability for physician misconduct during examinations the insurers arranged and paid for as part of no-fault claims administration.

Case Background

Robert Reynolds sustained injuries to his neck, back, and left shoulder in a motor vehicle accident and submitted no-fault claims to his insurer, Geico. As part of claims processing, Geico scheduled Reynolds for an Independent Medical Examination with a chiropractor arranged through SCS Support Claim Services, Inc., a third-party vendor that coordinates IMEs on behalf of insurance companies. During the chiropractic examination, the examining physician manipulated Reynolds’ left knee—an area not involved in the original accident or the claimed injuries. Reynolds alleged that this knee manipulation was medically inappropriate and caused new injuries requiring surgical intervention. Reynolds and his wife commenced a negligence action against Geico, SCS, and the examining chiropractor, alleging that Geico negligently selected, instructed, and supervised both SCS and the chiropractor. Geico moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims, arguing that as a matter of law it could not be held liable for the independent contractor chiropractor’s alleged malpractice. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and Geico appealed.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Reynolds v Ferrante, 2013 NY Slip Op 04154 (4th Dept. 2013)

“Plaintiff Robert A. Reynolds (plaintiff) had an insurance policy with Geico and sustained injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder in a motor vehicle accident. Geico scheduled a no-fault examination for plaintiff with a chiropractor through defendant SCS Support Claim Services, Inc. (SCS), an independent contractor for Geico. During the course of that examination, plaintiff’s left knee was injured allegedly as a result of the chiropractor’s manipulation of the knee. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that Geico was negligent in the selection, instruction and supervision of SCS and the chiropractor.”

“Geico contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion because it cannot be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor. We reject that contention. It is well settled that a person who hires an independent contractor may be held liable for negligence in selecting, instructing or supervising that independent contractor”

“We conclude that the amended complaint is sufficient to advise the court and Geico of the transactions and occurrences on which plaintiffs based their claim and plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a cause of action against Geico based upon the alleged negligent selection, instruction and supervision of SCS and the chiropractor”

So in order to prevail against Geico, Plaintiff has to prove that they knew or should have known that the IME chiropractor had tendencies to perform inappropriate IMEs? It is an interesting lawsuit to say the least

Legal Significance

Reynolds establishes that no-fault insurers cannot automatically invoke the independent contractor doctrine to shield themselves from liability when IME physicians injure claimants. The Fourth Department’s application of the negligent selection, instruction, and supervision exceptions creates meaningful exposure for insurance carriers who fail to exercise appropriate diligence in vetting and monitoring IME providers. This holding aligns with broader tort principles recognizing that even when work is delegated to independent contractors, principals retain non-delegable duties to ensure contractors are competent and properly supervised.

The decision’s practical effect depends significantly on what constitutes “negligent selection” in the IME context. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that insurers knew or should have known that particular IME physicians posed risks of performing inappropriate examinations or causing patient injuries. This could involve evidence that examining physicians previously injured other patients, exceeded the scope of appropriate IME protocols, maintained poor professional reputations, or faced disciplinary actions from licensing boards. Alternatively, plaintiffs might prove that insurers failed to implement any systematic vetting procedures for IME providers, instead selecting examiners based solely on cost or availability without regard to qualifications or track records.

The “negligent instruction” theory presents additional avenues for insurer liability. If carriers fail to clearly communicate to IME physicians what body areas should be examined based on the claimed injuries, or if they encourage aggressive examination techniques designed to detect malingering rather than genuinely assess injury severity, plaintiffs may establish that inadequate instructions contributed to examination injuries. Similarly, “negligent supervision” claims could succeed where insurers receive complaints about particular IME physicians’ examination practices but continue using those providers without investigation or corrective action.

However, the decision’s ultimate significance may prove limited. Establishing insurer knowledge of IME physician incompetence or dangerous tendencies likely requires substantial discovery into the insurer’s IME selection processes, past complaints, and quality assurance procedures. Many insurers will be able to demonstrate reasonable vetting and monitoring systems that negate negligence findings. Moreover, the distinction between negligent selection and mere vicarious liability remains crucial: insurers who properly vet competent physicians but whose selected examiners nonetheless commit malpractice during IMEs should still enjoy independent contractor protection.

Practical Implications for Insurers and Claimants

For insurance companies conducting IMEs, Reynolds mandates implementation of comprehensive IME provider vetting and monitoring systems. Carriers should develop written protocols for qualifying IME physicians, including verification of licensure and board certifications, review of malpractice history, and evaluation of any past disciplinary actions. Insurers should also establish quality assurance programs that track patient complaints regarding IME physicians and investigate reported concerns. When problematic patterns emerge with particular examiners, carriers must document their responsive actions, which might include additional training, modified examination protocols, or termination of the examining relationship. These institutional safeguards serve dual purposes: they protect claimants from incompetent or dangerous examinations while simultaneously creating documentary evidence that insurers exercised reasonable care in selecting and supervising IME providers.

For no-fault claimants scheduled for IMEs, this decision provides potential recourse when examinations cause new injuries. Claimants injured during IMEs should document the circumstances thoroughly, including what body areas the examiner manipulated, whether those areas related to claimed injuries, whether the claimant objected or expressed discomfort during the examination, and what injuries manifested afterward. Claimants should also obtain prompt medical evaluation of new injuries to establish temporal proximity between the IME and the harm. When commencing litigation, plaintiffs should conduct aggressive discovery into the insurer’s IME selection procedures, requesting documentation of examiner vetting, prior complaints against the specific physician, and any quality assurance reviews. Evidence that insurers ignored red flags about problem examiners can transform difficult negligent selection claims into viable liability theories.

The decision also raises interesting strategic considerations for claimants asserting IME-related injury claims. Because proving insurer negligence in IME selection requires substantial discovery, plaintiffs may benefit from naming the examining physicians as co-defendants and pursuing both medical malpractice claims against the physicians and negligent selection claims against insurers. This approach provides multiple recovery avenues while creating opportunities for finger-pointing between defendants that may benefit plaintiffs during settlement negotiations.

Related Articles

• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
• IME Reports Are Entitled to Qualified Privilege Against Defamation Claims
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations governing Independent Medical Examinations have been subject to various amendments, including updates to IME scheduling procedures, examination protocols, and insurer oversight requirements. Practitioners handling IME-related negligence claims should verify current regulatory provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and any intervening case law that may have refined the standards for insurer liability in the selection and supervision of independent contractors.