Key Takeaway
New York court case American Transit v. Megan Ash addresses Independent Medical Examination procedures in no-fault insurance claims and provider obligations.
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.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) represent a critical juncture in New York no-fault insurance cases, where insurance companies can require claimants to undergo medical evaluations to verify the necessity and reasonableness of ongoing treatment. The procedural requirements surrounding IMEs are strictly governed by New York Insurance Law and regulations, with specific notice provisions that must be followed to ensure the examination is properly scheduled and conducted.
The case of American Transit v. Megan Ash provides important guidance on IME procedures and the obligations of various parties in the no-fault insurance process. Understanding these procedural requirements is essential for both healthcare providers and patients navigating the complexities of no-fault insurance claims. When IME procedures are not properly followed, it can have significant implications for claim denials and the ability of insurance carriers to terminate benefits.
IME-related disputes frequently arise in no-fault insurance litigation, particularly regarding proper notice requirements and the consequences of examination no-shows. Courts have consistently emphasized that strict compliance with statutory notice provisions is mandatory. Issues such as whether IME letters need to be sent to providers and the proper handling of IME no-shows due to mailing issues have been the subject of extensive litigation.
The American Transit decision contributes to the body of case law that helps define the boundaries of IME procedures and their impact on ongoing no-fault benefits, particularly when carriers seek to terminate coverage based on examination results or patient non-compliance.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
American Transit v. Megan Ash, 2013 NY Slip Op 32268(U)(Sup. Ct. NY Co., Madden, J.)
Key Takeaway
This case represents another data point in the ongoing evolution of IME jurisprudence in New York no-fault insurance law. While brief, the decision likely addresses specific procedural aspects of Independent Medical Examinations that insurance carriers must follow when attempting to verify claim legitimacy. Understanding these procedural requirements is crucial for healthcare providers who must address the complex relationship between patient treatment, medical necessity determinations, and insurance carrier obligations. The outcome of such cases directly impacts whether carriers can successfully substantiate no-shows and terminate benefits, making proper IME procedure compliance essential for all parties involved in no-fault insurance claims.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations governing IME procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or court decisions affecting notice requirements, scheduling protocols, and consequences for non-compliance. Practitioners should verify current IME procedural requirements under the Insurance Law and applicable regulations, as well as recent case law interpreting these provisions.
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
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021NF-3 is the operative document
Court ruling confirms NF-3 forms trigger 15-day IME request deadline, and patient no-shows at two scheduled exams justify insurance coverage disclaimer.
Mar 22, 2021DJ denial reversed: A misspelling can be excused, and notice to the attorney is enough
DJ denial reversed: Court excuses IME notice misspelling, rules proper service to attorney sufficient for no-fault insurance claim coverage denial.
Nov 12, 2013Westchester v. Lincoln with a "cf" to Unitrin
Court decision reinforces that IME attendance is a condition precedent to insurer liability, with ongoing debate between Westchester and Unitrin precedents.
Aug 5, 2011Subsequent IME not allowed
New York court rules that subsequent IMEs require demonstrated necessity when initial examination reaches definitive conclusions in no-fault insurance cases.
Nov 11, 2017No-show troubles
NY courts rule on IME no-show cases requiring personal knowledge proof. Three 2015 decisions show insufficient conclusory affidavits fail summary judgment standards.
Nov 17, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Independent Medical Examination (IME)?
An IME is a medical examination conducted by a doctor chosen by the insurance company to evaluate the claimant's injuries and treatment. In no-fault cases, insurers use IMEs to determine whether ongoing treatment is medically necessary, whether the injuries are causally related to the accident, and whether the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. The results of an IME can form the basis for a claim denial or cut-off of benefits.
Can I refuse to attend an IME?
No. Under New York's no-fault regulations, attending an IME when properly scheduled is a condition precedent to receiving benefits. However, the insurer must follow specific scheduling procedures — including providing reasonable notice and accommodating certain scheduling conflicts. If the insurer fails to properly schedule the IME or you have a legitimate reason for missing it, the resulting denial may be challenged.
How should I prepare for an Independent Medical Examination?
Be honest and thorough when describing your symptoms, limitations, and treatment history. Arrive on time with photo ID and be prepared for a physical examination that may test your range of motion and functional abilities. The IME doctor works for the insurance company and may spend limited time with you, so clearly communicate your ongoing symptoms. Your attorney can advise you on what to expect and review the IME report for accuracy afterward.
What is maximum medical improvement (MMI) in no-fault cases?
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) means the point at which your condition has stabilized and further treatment is unlikely to produce significant improvement. When an IME doctor determines you have reached MMI, the insurer may cut off further no-fault benefits. However, reaching MMI does not necessarily mean you have fully recovered — you may still have permanent limitations. Your treating physician can dispute the MMI finding through a detailed rebuttal affirmation.
Can I challenge an IME doctor's findings in my no-fault case?
Yes. If an IME results in a denial or cut-off of benefits, your treating physician can submit a sworn affirmation rebutting the IME findings point by point. The rebuttal should reference specific clinical findings, objective test results, and range-of-motion measurements that contradict the IME conclusions. At arbitration or trial, the fact-finder weighs both the IME report and the treating physician's opinion. An experienced no-fault attorney can identify weaknesses in the IME report.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.