Key Takeaway
Long Island court ruling on IME no-show reversals and proof requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases, featuring Jacoby Chiropractic decision.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 150 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.
Jacoby Chiropractic, P.C. v Redland Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51998(U)(App. Term 2d Dept 2013)
“The Civil Court (Richard G. Latin, J. ) denied both motions, finding that plaintiff had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, that defendant had timely denied the claims based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs), and that defendant had timely and properly requested IMEs. Thus, the only issue for trial was “the no-show of the assignor at the IMEs.”
In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by the healthcare professional retained to perform the IMEs which established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at IMEs on June 12, 2009 and June 25, 2009. As an appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability on a policy (see Insurance Department Regulations NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ) and plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.”
How much do you want to bet that this particular judge, when confronted with the same no-show affidavit, will deny the motion for summary judgment and prompt another appeal? He will say, well how do we know your healthcare professional was in the office that entire day and knew that the assignor failed to attend the IME. I can see it already.
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.
There is no end in sight.
See also: Vit Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52000(U)(App. Term 2d Dept 2013)
Related Articles
- Understanding IME no-show personal knowledge requirements
- Court of Appeals precedent on IME attendance voiding coverage
- Quantum of proof standards for establishing IME no-shows
- Medical provider burden of proof for counsel notification in IME cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations under 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1 may have been amended, and procedural requirements for establishing IME non-appearance may have evolved through subsequent case law and regulatory updates. Additionally, evidentiary standards for proving no-show at IMEs may have been refined through appellate decisions in the intervening years. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law regarding IME documentation requirements and burden of proof standards.
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
Failure to attend IMEs voids coverage – with citation to Court of Appeals precedent
American Transit v Lucas accepted the physician and employee affidavits. Read the IME no-show holding, Jason's counsel credit, and the cited precedent's limits.
Nov 7, 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
The 'Lynn Carter' Problem: Fictitious IME Contacts and No-Fault No-Show Defenses in New York
Brand v ELRAC rejected renewal over the Lynn Carter pseudonym because no rescheduling attempt was shown. The court did not approve fictitious contacts.
Dec 26, 2017
Lincoln General citing
Compas v Praetorian awarded the provider its third claim while dismissing seven others. Read the 2015 denial ruling beside Unitrin and Gaines.
Nov 28, 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.
