Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a cornerstone of New York’s no-fault insurance system, allowing insurers to verify the medical necessity of ongoing treatment. When patients fail to appear for scheduled IMEs, insurers can use this nonappearance as grounds to deny benefits. However, successfully proving an IME no-show in court requires meeting specific evidentiary standards.
The First Department’s decision in Sunrise Acupuncture demonstrates the precise requirements insurers must satisfy to establish a valid defense based on IME nonappearance. This case is particularly instructive for understanding how courts evaluate the sufficiency of evidence when IME no-show defenses are raised, and what constitutes adequate proof of both proper notice and actual nonappearance.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sunrise Acupuncture, P.C. v Encompass Auto & Home Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51082(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014)
“The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor and his counsel, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 ). With respect to the appearance issue, defendant presented competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and an employee of the defendant’s third-party biller attesting to the affiants’ “personal knowledge of the office procedures when a failed to appear for a medical exam” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424).”
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.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that insurers must prove two elements for successful IME no-show defenses: (1) proper and timely mailing of IME notices, and (2) competent evidence of nonappearance through sworn affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of office procedures. The court’s emphasis on “personal knowledge” highlights the importance of detailed, first-hand testimony rather than conclusory statements when substantiating no-show claims.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including updates to IME scheduling procedures, notice requirements, and documentation standards under 11 NYCRR 65. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have refined the evidentiary standards for proving IME non-appearance and the sufficiency of mailing documentation. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law when handling IME no-show defenses.
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
IME no-show unsuccessful
Renelique v Park: an unexplained NF-3 address mismatch and no proof of attorney representation defeated the insurer's IME no-show motion.
Jun 3, 2018
Another proof of the no show
Village Medical rejected IME doctors' unexplained recollection and sole reliance on the scheduling vendor. The 2016 opinion sets no affidavit expiration date.
Mar 25, 2016
IME no show run amuck
Court ruling on IME no-shows highlights timing issues with claim denials in no-fault insurance cases, showing the complexity of procedural requirements.
Apr 2, 2014
The failure to specifically deny the lack of appearence at an IMEs proves fatal
Appeals court confirms that failing to specifically deny a patient's IME no-show in opposition papers proves fatal to a medical provider's no-fault insurance claim.
May 16, 2012Was 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.
