Key Takeaway
Eagle Surgical Supply v GEICO highlights the critical requirement that insurance companies must present witnesses with personal knowledge to prove IME no-shows at trial.
When insurance companies claim that medical providers failed to appear for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs), they must meet specific evidentiary standards to prevail at trial. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates why proper witness testimony is essential in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases.
In no-fault insurance disputes, IMEs are a common tool used by insurance carriers to evaluate medical necessity and treatment appropriateness. However, when providers allegedly fail to appear for these examinations, insurers must prove the no-show occurred through competent evidence. This requirement has created challenges for insurance companies that rely on third-party scheduling services or inadequate documentation to establish their cases.
The Eagle Surgical Supply case illustrates a fundamental principle that has appeared in numerous court decisions: witness testimony must come from someone with direct, personal knowledge of the events in question. This evidentiary standard prevents insurance companies from using hearsay or secondhand accounts to deny legitimate claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51265(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Defendant’s sole witness at trial was the scheduling supervisor for Empire Stat, an independent company which, the witness explained, scheduled IMEs and mailed IME notices for [*2]defendant. The witness testified that, based upon his review of the file, he had determined that plaintiff’s assignor had not appeared for two scheduled IMEs. Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant failed to submit evidence from a person with personal knowledge of the alleged nonappearances”
So again, we again learn that an individual with personal knowledge is necessary to substantiate the no-show at trial. And again, an attempt to get around this reality allows for judgment to be entered.
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies cannot rely solely on file reviews or secondhand testimony to prove IME no-shows. Courts consistently require witnesses with direct, personal knowledge of the alleged nonappearance. This evidentiary standard protects medical providers from unfounded denials and ensures that no-show claims are properly substantiated with competent proof rather than assumption or hearsay.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and IME procedures may have been subject to regulatory amendments or procedural updates. Practitioners should verify current evidentiary standards for establishing IME no-shows and any changes to witness testimony requirements under current no-fault insurance regulations.
