IME no shows reversed

The two August 2014 reversals accepted evidence of notice, nonappearance and timely denial. They did not establish a statute requiring exactly three affidavits. Quality Psychological concerned an insurer’s dismissal motion; Arco Medical concerned the part of a complaint based on specified IME no-show denials.

Historical note — Last reviewed: September 2026. These 2014 Appellate Term decisions accepted the proof submitted for the claims before them; Gaines (2025) later illustrates the distinct First Department approach to pre-claim notices and disclaimer timing, linked through the IME directory.

Quality Psychological: accepted evidence from three sources

Quality Psychological Services v New York Central Mutual, 44 Misc 3d 138(A), was decided August 8, 2014, by the Appellate Term, Second Department. It reversed the denial of the insurer’s motion insofar as appealed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The scheduling company’s employee established timely mailing through the office’s standard practices. The chiropractor who was to conduct the examinations established nonappearance. The claims examiner’s affidavit established timely mailing of the denial.

The chiropractor detail matters. The older explanation repeatedly referred to an examining physician as if that were the only permissible witness. The published decision identifies a chiropractor conducting chiropractic IMEs. The proof must be described as the court described it.

Arco Medical: a limited part of the complaint

The same day’s Arco Medical NY v AIG Indemnity, 2014 NY Slip Op 51257(U), involved multiple providers and competing motions. The appeal concerned claims denied for the assignor’s failure to attend scheduled IMEs.

The court accepted scheduling-company mailing proof, affidavits from the healthcare professionals and timely-denial evidence. It granted the relevant branch of the insurer’s motion and denied the providers’ cross-motion branch concerning that portion of the complaint.

That is more precise than saying every claim in the action was dismissed. The two decisions use similar reasoning, but the scope of the relief differs. A reader checking a later citation should keep that scope attached to the holding.

Why three evidentiary subjects are not a three-affidavit rule

The original note organized the successful proof into numbered extracts. That structure is useful, but it should not become a mandatory document count.

The questions concern notice, nonappearance and the applicable claim-processing showing. More than one witness may address a subject; one appropriately knowledgeable witness may address more than one. The court still evaluates the actual foundation and the evidence relevant to the motion. A stack containing three documents does not pass automatically.

The decisions do not prescribe a universal form, required wording or fixed witness roster. Arco itself speaks of affidavits by healthcare professionals in the plural. The refreshed explanation therefore retains the three proof subjects without inventing an exact numerical condition.

Mailing proof: examine the procedure, not just the conclusion

The accepted affidavits addressed the ordinary practice used to mail the scheduling letters. They did not merely identify a letter sitting in a file. That distinction lets a court connect the procedure to the claimed mailing.

Great Health Care v Hertz is a useful failed-proof comparison. It did not adequately establish IME-notice mailing, even though timely mailing of the denial had been shown. The later denial does not prove the earlier appointment notice.

East 75th Street is a successful comparison involving an outside scheduling company and doctors’ attendance evidence. Neither case says every outside vendor has superior credibility or that a standard-practice statement is adequate without examining what it actually explains.

Nonappearance: a medical cutoff is a different issue

These cases concern missed examinations. They do not decide whether a doctor examined someone and properly found further treatment unnecessary. The evidence needed to support that different defense should not be substituted for attendance proof.

Likewise, a notice’s existence does not establish that the person missed the appointment. The witness must provide a competent basis for the absence being asserted. Lucas discusses why the physician and employee affidavits there were not conclusory.

The 2026 GC Chiropractic note supplies a later EUO comparison concerning an affirmation prepared after a substantial interval. It is useful for separating the age of a statement from the basis of the witness’s knowledge. It is not a ruling about the chiropractor or other healthcare professionals in these two 2014 appeals.

Denial timing: keep the court and chronology attached

Both published opinions accepted timely-denial evidence. That does not justify the older copy’s universal assertion that an untimely denial always precludes every IME no-show defense.

The First Department’s Gaines decision (2025) rejected a timely-disclaimer requirement in the pre-claim-notice setting before it. By contrast, Longevity v Citiwide expressly traced timely denial after written verification arrived. Those are identifiable records, not contradictory slogans to choose between.

The correct research question is what rule applies to the defense and chronology in the relevant forum. A generic instruction to count thirty days from the last missed appointment would erase the verification issue examined in Longevity and the distinction drawn in Gaines.

An issue can be settled even when a trial remains necessary

A motion need not resolve every question in an action. CPLR 3212(g) permits the court, when it denies summary judgment or grants it only in part, to identify facts that are not in substantial controversy and treat them as established for the remaining proceedings.

That is a reason to read the lower court’s order alongside the appellate disposition. An order may settle mailing while leaving nonappearance disputed, or narrow the claims still requiring attention. Do not assume those are the findings in a new file just because another no-show case used similar language. Identify the actual determination and whether it was challenged.

For the collection here, Arco’s limitation to a portion of the complaint is express. Quality Psychological resulted in dismissal of the complaint before the court. Keeping the claim scope visible is more useful than describing both simply as “the insurer won.”

What the appellate reversals show

These were reviews of summary-judgment orders, not appellate second-guessing of a witness whom the trial judge had watched testify. The courts evaluated the submitted proof and the legal entitlement to relief. The older suggestion that a three-affidavit package overcame ordinary deference to trial credibility misdescribed the posture.

A useful reading begins with the order under review and the part appealed. Then ask what the movant established and what issue remained. In Arco, that approach keeps the limited claim branch in view. In Quality Psychological, it keeps the dismissal motion distinct from any unrelated treatment dispute.

Solorzano adds another procedural comparison: a successful no-show showing coexisted with a failure to satisfy default-notice requirements. It reinforces the point that proving one defense is not the same as satisfying every requirement for the requested judgment.

The archive preserves these decisions because the details make them useful. The connected notes allow a reader to test a proposed analogy, not simply count favorable citations.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

The IME no-show case directory connects notice, attendance, timing and procedural decisions:

• Great Health: denial mailing did not prove every no-show issue
• East 75th Street: the Nassau County examination-notice record
• Lucas: physician and employee evidence in the First Department
• Longevity v Citiwide: IMEs, written verification and denial timing
• Solorzano: summary judgment and default relief were different requests
• GC Chiropractic (2025): a later EUO affirmation and the time-lapse objection

For review of a particular no-fault claim or motion record, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. and read about our no-fault defense practice.