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.
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.
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.
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
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
DJ 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, 2013
Westchester v. Lincoln with a "cf" to Unitrin
Alrof v Nationwide: timely denials and IME proof supported judgment. The Westchester-Unitrin citation concerns preclusion, not insurer misconduct.
Aug 5, 2011
Second IME Requests: When New York Courts Refuse to Compel Another Exam
When an insurance company requests a second IME in New York, courts require proof of necessity. Kolodziejski v Jaskolka explains the CPLR 3121 standard.
Nov 11, 2017
No-show troubles
Three 2015 no-show decisions distinguish IME proof from a provider EUO and explain why neither side obtained summary judgment.
Nov 17, 2015Was 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.
