Key Takeaway
Acupuncture Solutions upheld IME notice and no-show proof. Compare its unexplained bill chronology with Gaines's later pre-claim timing distinction.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 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.
The insurer won summary judgment in Acupuncture Solutions (March 23, 2015). The Appellate Term, First Department accepted the mailing and nonattendance proof. Jason’s original question was narrower: did the notices have to be coordinated with receipt of the provider’s bill?
Historical note: Acupuncture Solutions does not disclose its bill chronology; Gaines (2025, First Department) later distinguished notices sent before claims arrive and rejected bill-by-bill treatment of the coverage defense.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2015)
Acupuncture Solutions, P.C. v Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50346(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)
“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 that the assignor failed to appear”
So here is the question. Did the “timely and properly mail the notices” include gearing the mailings to the receipt of Plaintiff’s bill?
I think the answer is no, as the basic construct of a first department no-show motion would not call for same. But I need to read the record before I can give an answer.
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.
The question the opinion leaves open
The short opinion does not give the bill-receipt dates needed to answer Jason’s question about that record. It describes affidavits from the examining chiropractor and the scheduling company, and says the provider raised no triable issue about attendance, mailing or the requests’ reasonableness. The opinion alone cannot settle that chronology.
The later Gaines decision (2025, First Department) distinguishes IME notices sent before claims arrive: the verification-request notification requirements in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 did not apply there. It also rejects bill-by-bill treatment of the coverage defense. That supplies later context, not a factual finding about Acupuncture Solutions.
Keep notice dates, claim-receipt dates and examination dates separate when reviewing the file. Unitrin still required proof of compliant requests and nonattendance; the timing distinction is not permission to ignore notice requirements.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:
- Priority Medical: office-practice affidavits accepted
- Vincent Medical: mailing, nonattendance and denial proof
- Compas v Praetorian: one untimely denial among eight claims
- Parisien: no response to requests and a later objection
- Bay LS: a name discrepancy left notice for trial
For review of a particular IME dispute, contact the office with the scheduling letters, mailing proof and relevant claim papers.
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
Another IME no-show victory shrowded in American Transit citations
Court victory for insurer after patient's IME no-show, featuring American Transit citations and analysis of denial rights in New York no-fault cases.
Jun 4, 2014
Follow up verification issued >25 days too late is a loser
Court rules that follow-up EUO verification requests sent more than 25 days late violate Triangle "R" rule, making insurance denials untimely under no-fault regulations.
Jun 18, 2012
Understanding Causation in New York Personal Injury Cases: Proving the Link
Learn how New York courts evaluate causation in personal injury cases through expert testimony and medical evidence, including key strategies for proving injury causation.
Jun 8, 2019
The acupuncture was medically necessary and then some
Court finds acupuncture medically necessary despite IME denial in Friedman v Allstate, precluding workers' comp defense not raised in original denial.
Mar 30, 2016Was 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.
