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.
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)
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.
“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 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.
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
IME watchdog
New York court rejects IME Watchdog's claims against defense firm for excluding non-attorneys from medical exams, finding no tortious conduct or irreparable harm in no-fault cases.
Dec 15, 2016
Misspelled Name in IME Scheduling Letters Defeats No-Show Defense
Bay LS v Chubb found a factual issue over the name on IME letters. The insurer lost summary judgment, not a final trial determination of its defense.
May 28, 2015
EUO no show – precluded due to untimely scheduling letters
New York court rules insurance company's EUO scheduling letters sent 70+ days after receiving bills were untimely and failed to toll payment obligations.
Jul 16, 2013
IME no-show (case #1)
Marina v Praetorian: the insurer won reversal and dismissal after proving IME notice mailing and nonattendance. Jason's original Fogel recollection.
Jul 30, 2010Was 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.
