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) are a critical component of New York’s no-fault insurance system. When an insurance company requests an IME, the patient’s attendance isn’t optional—it’s a mandatory condition for maintaining coverage. The consequences of failing to appear can be severe and far-reaching.
This particular case from the Appellate Term highlights a fundamental principle in no-fault law: when patients don’t show up for scheduled IMEs, insurance companies gain powerful rights to deny claims. The court’s reference to the Unitrin decision underscores established precedent that gives insurers broad authority in these situations.
The case also touches on important procedural aspects of IME scheduling and notification requirements. While IME letters don’t necessarily need to be sent to healthcare providers directly, proper notice to the patient remains crucial. Issues around whether IME notices were properly mailed frequently arise in these disputes.
Understanding these IME requirements is essential for both patients and healthcare providers navigating the no-fault system.
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:
MDJ Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51797(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
There was nothing out of the ordinary about this case, except the quote from Unitrin: “We note that “when assignor[] failed to appear for the requested IMEs, had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued” (id.).”
I am assuming that Civil Court found that preclusion applied to IME no-shows, hence the “we note” language in the opinion.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that IME no-shows carry serious consequences in New York no-fault cases. Insurance companies can retroactively deny all claims back to the original date of loss when patients fail to appear for required medical examinations, even if the denial notices weren’t issued within typical timeframes. The Unitrin precedent continues to provide insurers with significant leverage in these situations.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s IME regulations and procedures may have been subject to amendments through Insurance Department regulatory updates, fee schedule revisions, or changes to notification and scheduling requirements. Practitioners should verify current IME provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions interpreting no-show consequences and procedural compliance standards.
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
Conclusory denial of receipt of IME letter is insufficient to stave off summary judgment
Court rules that simply denying receipt of an IME notice letter isn't enough to defeat summary judgment in no-fault insurance cases without additional evidence.
Apr 1, 2013
Verification, EUO and IME
Avalon Radiology required a new trial on denial timing after an EUO. The ruling did not finally decide benefits or create an unlimited verification toll.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Article 75 needed to be taken against AAA
Long Island attorney discusses Article 75 petition success against AAA master arbitrator decision in IME no-show case, highlighting systemic issues in no-fault arbitration.
Sep 16, 2016
Delay for IME and EUO no shows
Power Supply Inc v Praetorian case establishes that insurers can maintain delay status for multiple no-shows until final EUO non-appearance triggers denial.
Mar 19, 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.
