IME no shows reversed

Understanding IME No-Show Denials: When Trial Courts Get It Wrong

Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) play a crucial role in New York no-fault insurance law. When injured parties fail to appear for scheduled IMEs, insurance companies often deny claims based on non-cooperation. However, trial courts sometimes incorrectly rule against insurers even when they have properly documented the IME scheduling process and the patient’s failure to appear.

Two recent Appellate Term decisions demonstrate how insurers can successfully appeal these adverse rulings by presenting the right combination of evidence. These cases highlight the importance of maintaining detailed records of IME scheduling procedures and obtaining proper affidavits from all relevant parties involved in the process.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51256(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

(1) “defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed to plaintiff’s assignor in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures”

(2) “Defendant also submitted, among other things, an affidavit by the chiropractor who was to perform the chiropractic IMEs, which was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for those duly scheduled IMEs”

(3) “an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim form, which denied plaintiff’s claim based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed ”

Arco Med. NY, P.C. v AIG Indem. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51257(U)(App. Term 2d Dept, 2014)

(same as above)

Key Takeaway

These reversals underscore that insurers must present comprehensive documentation to support IME no-show denials. The winning formula requires three key affidavits: one from the IME scheduling company establishing proper notice, one from the examining physician confirming non-appearance, and one from the claims examiner proving timely denial. This thorough approach can overcome adverse trial court rulings.

Related Articles

• New York No-Fault Insurance Law
• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• No-Fault regulatory amendments and their practical implications

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 analysis of IME no-show procedures, New York’s no-fault regulations may have been amended regarding IME scheduling requirements, notice provisions, and documentation standards for non-cooperation defenses. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions interpreting IME compliance obligations.