Key Takeaway
Court upholds IME no-show defense using declaratory judgment case law precedent in New York no-fault insurance litigation, demonstrating retroactive claim denial rights.
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.
Stracar Med. Servs. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50263(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014) (sorry – this was a first department case – perhaps it was wishful thinking that the judges at 141 Livingston Street would follow this)
Not only were the ATIC declaratory judgment actions that were filed en masse from 2011-2013 potent, but they created great case law. Now, I am proud to say that the case law I created has now found its way into Appellate Term orders in Civil Court cases, where most non-arbitrated no-fault matters call home.
“Defendant-insurer demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party no-fault benefits by submitting the affidavit of its no-fault litigation examiner demonstrating that the notices scheduling the assignor’s independent medical examinations (IMEs) were timely and properly mailed, as well as the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and her employee that the assignor failed to appear at the scheduled IMEs (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 ). In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 , lv denied 17 NY3d 705 ). _“_Accordingly, when assignor[] failed to appear for the requested medical exams, had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424 ; see Unitrin at 560).”
Related Articles
- Failure to attend IMEs voids coverage with Court of Appeals precedent
- The affidavits were unshakable
- IME no-show with quantum of proof regarding the no-show
- IME No-Show personal knowledge requirements
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone significant amendments, including updated IME scheduling requirements and procedural modifications that may affect the standards for establishing proper notice and no-show defenses. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions when relying on IME no-show precedents, as both substantive requirements and evidentiary standards may have evolved.
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
Donde esta Unitrin?
Vincent Medical accepted IME mailing, nonattendance and denial proof. Jason's Unitrin comparison concerns coverage preclusion, not address verification.
Sep 26, 2011
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
Uncertified Treating Physician Records Can Defeat a Serious Injury Claim: Uribe v Jimenez
Uribe v Jimenez (2d Dept 2015): a defendant may rely on the plaintiff's own uncertified treating physician records to show no serious injury under Insurance Law 5102(d).
Dec 4, 2015
IME no-show – Court refused to follow Appellate Division standards
Court refused to follow Appellate Division standards in IME no-show case, incorrectly ruling on mailing requirements and attorney representation burden.
Apr 2, 2014Was 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.
