Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 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.
MVAIC’s Recurring Problem with IME Notice Proof
When insurance carriers schedule Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs), they must prove proper notice was given to justify claim denials for patient no-shows. The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) continues to struggle with this fundamental requirement, as demonstrated in a recent Appellate Term decision that highlights persistent deficiencies in their proof of mailing.
Under New York No-Fault Insurance Law, carriers must establish they properly scheduled IMEs before denying claims based on non-attendance. This requires more than generic testimony about office procedures—it demands specific evidence that notices were actually mailed according to established protocols.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Acupuncture Approach PC v MVAIC, 2013 NY Slip Op 51676(U)(App. Term 1st 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 moving submission heavily relied on an affidavit submitted by an employee of the entity retained by defendant to schedule the IMEs in this matter. The affiant, however, had no personal knowledge of the dates the IME notices were actually mailed, and described in only the most general terms her office’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, defendant “failed to establish that the practice and procedure was designed to ensure that the were addressed to the proper party and properly mailed” (Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676 ; cf. Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229 ).”
What is missing from MVAIC’s affidavits? Did the affiant work at the entity when the letter was mailed? Is there some procedure in place that vendor is supposed to follow? Are the letters as a matter of practice mailed on the day of the letter or next business date? This is the 3rd time we saw this from this Court and this defendant.
Key Takeaway
This marks the third time this court has rejected MVAIC’s proof of mailing for IME notices. Successful IME no-show defenses require affidavits from employees with personal knowledge of actual mailing practices, not generic descriptions of office procedures. The decision reinforces that carriers must demonstrate specific, reliable systems for ensuring proper notice delivery.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and IME scheduling requirements may have been amended through regulatory updates or court decisions affecting proof-of-mailing standards. Practitioners should verify current notice requirements, acceptable forms of proof of service, and any changes to MVAIC’s procedural obligations when establishing proper IME scheduling.
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
Mailing to the attorney
Court rules insurance company failed to provide adequate IME notice when letter to insured was sent to wrong address, despite proper notice to attorney.
May 14, 2018
Dr. Katz and Justice Hart
Dr. Katz and Justice Hart IME case highlights problems with 3-minute examination versus prescribed 10-20 minutes, mistrial issues, and undisclosed recordings.
Dec 4, 2015
“Defendant is mistaken”
Court ruling shows insurance companies can't use IME no-shows as defense if they failed to timely deny claims, highlighting procedural requirements in no-fault cases.
Mar 25, 2014
A court in Nassau has applied Unitrin through a front door and back door channel
Analysis of Nassau County court applying Unitrin v. Bayshore in American Transit v. Mayo IME no-show case. Expert legal analysis of front/back door channels.
Feb 11, 2012Was 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.
