Key Takeaway
Medical providers cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense by claiming outstanding discovery. NY appellate court rules on summary judgment standards.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 246 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
South Nassau Community Hosp. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51384(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit by the owner of Alternative Consulting and Examinations (ACE), the entity which had scheduled the IMEs involved herein on behalf of defendant. The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with ACE’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of its examining chiropractor, who stated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs. As the District Court found, for all purposes in the action, that defendant had timely mailed the denials at issue, and as plaintiff does not challenge that finding, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720).
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that discovery was needed in order to show the existence of a triable issue of fact” (Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 134, 2009 NY Slip Op 52222 ; see also Corwin v Heart Share Human Servs. of NY, 66 AD3d 814 )
This case is more important in the realm of Unitrin-Solorzano based declaratory judgment actions, when Defendant medical providers argue that the motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of non-coverage is inappropriate because disclosure is outstanding. This is the first appellate case that has been presented with this fact pattern.
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.
Related Articles
- Medical provider needs to prove that Assignor was represented by counsel and that counsel failed to receive notification of IME
- The affidavits were unshakable
- IME no-show (First Department)
- IME no-show substantiated again
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and IME procedural requirements may have been subject to amendments through regulatory updates or legislative changes. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding IME scheduling notice requirements, discovery standards in summary judgment motions, and the specific procedural safeguards for medical provider defenses against non-cooperation claims.
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.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
246 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
Brooklyn Heights: IME notice, denial forms mailed to three recipients, and the provider's unanswered duplicate-mailing argument in a 2012 appeal.
Jan 10, 2013
EBT's in no fault practice – "laches does not apply"
Queens Chiropractic v Country Wide ruling that time delays don't waive insurance carriers' EBT rights in no-fault cases, contrasting with First Department precedent.
Jun 4, 2009
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
A worthless preclusion order
Court rules discovery preclusion orders are worthless when insurance denials admit receipt of medical bills, allowing no-fault providers to prove their case at trial.
Dec 23, 2014Was 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 discovery 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.
