Key Takeaway
T & J Chiropractic v GEICO: why deficient IME no-show statements defeated the insurer's motion without establishing the provider's right to judgment.
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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: T & J Chiropractic (2015) concerns the proof on two IME-denied claims; rejection of the insurer’s motion did not establish the provider’s own entitlement to judgment.
In T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO, the Appellate Term, Second Department modified the order on May 18, 2015 to deny the insurer summary judgment on the third and fourth causes of action. The chiropractor and doctor had submitted sworn statements, but neither demonstrated personal knowledge of the patient’s nonappearance. The provider did not obtain summary judgment either.
Why both motions still failed
The provider’s separate motion still needed proof that the claims had not been timely denied, or that the denials were legally insufficient. The CPLR 3212(g) findings covered submission and nonpayment. Whether the denials were untimely or legally insufficient remained a separate gap. A defect in GEICO’s no-show proof did not fill the gap in the provider’s own case.
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 opinion does not reproduce the examiners’ statements. Jason’s suggestion below about one- or two-sentence affidavits is his inference, expressly made without seeing them. For a claim file, the useful question is how each witness knows the person did not attend. A signature and jurat do not answer that question. Fogel supplies the underlying distinction between the IME condition and admissible proof of its breach.
Jason’s original note
Jason’s original 2015 comment follows. He expressly had not seen the affidavits; his suggested wording and comparison to other cases are not findings in this opinion.
Without having seen the affidavits, I am assuming that that these are the one or two sentences that say “I am a doctor and Assignor failed to appear”. These worked in ATIC v. Solorzano, but would most likely fail the Alrof and Bright Supply/IDS test.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- Delta Diagnostic: why both summary-judgment requests failed
- Compas: separate IME and fee-schedule proof problems
- Three 2015 decisions on inadequate IME and EUO proof
- SIGNET reports and the problem of proving actual nonattendance
- Utica: the unexplained basis of a two-year recollection
- MB Advanced: conflicting affidavits about the examination location
- Marina: mailing and nonattendance proof that supported dismissal
For review of a particular claim, our no-fault defense practice can assess the notices, denials and motion papers. Contact the office to discuss the file. For broader background, see New York no-fault insurance law.
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
Tolling for an IME or EUO
PR Medical v Praetorian: a delay letter did not establish tolling. The provider won judgment; Jason's scheduling-letter explanation is distinguished.
Mar 25, 2016
IME no-show denial timely where verification requested after no-show
Village Medical Supply won dismissal for the insurer: one timely denial followed claim receipt, the other followed receipt of requested verification.
Apr 19, 2014
IME No-Show Defense Defeated by an Affidavit Gap: Mailing Proof Must Cover Every Cause of Action
BR Clinton: the denial-mailing affidavit omitted one claim. Neither side won that claim; the insurer obtained judgment on the other four.
May 16, 2012
IME Medical Malpractice Claims in New York: When Doctors Cross the Line
Court ruling shows IME doctors can face malpractice liability when they depart from accepted medical practice during examinations, requiring proper evidence of standard procedures.
Jun 8, 2019Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What must an insurer prove to win on an IME no-show defense in New York?
An insurer needs admissible proof of proper IME requests and the alleged nonattendance. T & J addresses deficient personal-knowledge proof on two claims; it does not supply a complete statewide test. Denial and preclusion requirements must be considered under the governing appellate authority.
Why was the examiner's affidavit insufficient in T & J Chiropractic v GEICO?
The sworn statements did not demonstrate the chiropractor's and doctor's personal knowledge of the assignor's nonappearance. The opinion does not reproduce the statements, so it does not establish exactly which words or supporting details were missing.
Does a failed IME no-show motion end the defense?
Not by itself. In T & J, the insurer's requests for judgment on two claims were denied, but the provider's own motion also remained denied. The ruling decided entitlement to judgment on that record, not who ultimately would prevail.
Was 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.
