Key Takeaway
Court clarifies that insurance companies don't need to notify healthcare providers when scheduling Independent Medical Examinations under New York No-Fault law.
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.
No-fault insurance disputes often center on procedural requirements that can make or break a case. One common area of confusion involves Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) — medical evaluations ordered by insurance companies to assess whether ongoing treatment is necessary. Healthcare providers sometimes argue that insurers must notify them when scheduling these examinations, but New York courts have consistently rejected this position.
The Appellate Term’s decision in Pugsley Chiropractic PLLC v MVAIC provides important clarification on IME notification requirements and reinforces established precedent about when insurance companies can rely on IME reports to deny claims. This ruling is particularly significant for healthcare providers who may face claim denials based on IME findings and need to understand the procedural landscape governing these examinations.
Understanding these IME requirements is crucial for both providers and patients navigating New York No-Fault Insurance Law, as procedural missteps can significantly impact the outcome of benefit disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Pugsley Chiropractic PLLC v MVAIC, 2015 NY Slip Op 50718(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)
(1) Defendant MVAIC made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claims based on a sworn independent medical examination (IME) report of its examining chiropractor, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his stated conclusion that the assignor’s injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further chiropractic treatment (see Utica Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 139, 2013 NY Slip Op 50643 )
I am partial to Utica Acupuncture – nothing new there.
(2) “Contrary to the conclusion reached below, defendant was not required to provide notice of the scheduled IME to plaintiff provider (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; 65-3.5,; 65-3.6; BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 134, 2014 NY Slip Op 60632 ), and the court therefore erred in declining to consider the report on this ground (see V.S. Care Acupuncture PC v MVAIC, 47 Misc 3d 126, 2015 NY Slip Op 50350 ).”
I am surprised that somebody countenanced this argument.
Key Takeaway
The Appellate Term definitively established that insurance companies have no obligation to notify healthcare providers when scheduling IMEs. This ruling reinforces that properly conducted IME reports can serve as valid grounds for claim denials, even when providers aren’t given advance notice of the examination. The decision strengthens insurers’ ability to rely on IME findings to establish medical necessity defenses.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2015, New York’s no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR Part 65 have undergone several amendments, particularly regarding IME procedures and notification requirements. The regulatory framework governing Independent Medical Examinations, including sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, may have been modified through subsequent rulemaking. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-1 and related sections, as procedural requirements for IME scheduling and provider notifications may differ from those discussed in this 2015 analysis.
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
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021NF-3 is the operative document
Court ruling confirms NF-3 forms trigger 15-day IME request deadline, and patient no-shows at two scheduled exams justify insurance coverage disclaimer.
Mar 22, 2021To appeal for the sake to appeal
New York court highlights importance of proper proof of mailing in no-fault insurance denials, showing how inadequate affidavits can undermine insurer defenses.
Mar 25, 2017Unsure
Court reverses Maya Assurance IME no-show case due to failure to prove timely mailing of scheduling letters, highlighting ongoing issues with IME procedures.
Aug 24, 2015Amended motion/Admissible Reply papers/Defects in affidavits/delay letter vs. verification requests
Court ruling on amended motions, defective IME affidavits, and delay letters vs. verification requests in New York no-fault insurance litigation procedures.
Aug 6, 2013Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Court ruling establishes "reasonableness" as new standard for challenging IME requests in NY no-fault cases, shifting burden from mailing proof to proving unreasonable demands.
Mar 30, 2011Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Independent Medical Examination (IME)?
An IME is a medical examination conducted by a doctor chosen by the insurance company to evaluate the claimant's injuries and treatment. In no-fault cases, insurers use IMEs to determine whether ongoing treatment is medically necessary, whether the injuries are causally related to the accident, and whether the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. The results of an IME can form the basis for a claim denial or cut-off of benefits.
Can I refuse to attend an IME?
No. Under New York's no-fault regulations, attending an IME when properly scheduled is a condition precedent to receiving benefits. However, the insurer must follow specific scheduling procedures — including providing reasonable notice and accommodating certain scheduling conflicts. If the insurer fails to properly schedule the IME or you have a legitimate reason for missing it, the resulting denial may be challenged.
How should I prepare for an Independent Medical Examination?
Be honest and thorough when describing your symptoms, limitations, and treatment history. Arrive on time with photo ID and be prepared for a physical examination that may test your range of motion and functional abilities. The IME doctor works for the insurance company and may spend limited time with you, so clearly communicate your ongoing symptoms. Your attorney can advise you on what to expect and review the IME report for accuracy afterward.
What is maximum medical improvement (MMI) in no-fault cases?
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) means the point at which your condition has stabilized and further treatment is unlikely to produce significant improvement. When an IME doctor determines you have reached MMI, the insurer may cut off further no-fault benefits. However, reaching MMI does not necessarily mean you have fully recovered — you may still have permanent limitations. Your treating physician can dispute the MMI finding through a detailed rebuttal affirmation.
Can I challenge an IME doctor's findings in my no-fault case?
Yes. If an IME results in a denial or cut-off of benefits, your treating physician can submit a sworn affirmation rebutting the IME findings point by point. The rebuttal should reference specific clinical findings, objective test results, and range-of-motion measurements that contradict the IME conclusions. At arbitration or trial, the fact-finder weighs both the IME report and the treating physician's opinion. An experienced no-fault attorney can identify weaknesses in the IME report.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.