Key Takeaway
Bay LS v Chubb found a factual issue over the name on IME letters. The insurer lost summary judgment, not a final trial determination of its defense.
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 name discrepancy in Bay LS Medical Supplies v Chubb (May 18, 2015) prevented summary judgment for the insurer. The letters used a different given name from the NF-2. The court found a question for trial about notice, not a final ruling that the IME defense could never succeed.
Historical note: Bay LS (2015) left a notice issue for trial; the headline’s reference to defeating the defense describes the failed summary judgment motion, not a final finding of coverage.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2015)
The decision was issued May 18, 2015. The 2014 year in the archived citation below is a transcription error; the original link points to the 2015 opinion.
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.
Bay Ls Med. Supplies, Inc. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50790(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
This is the first time I saw a spelling error cause an IME defense to fold. But the error here is significant enough to raise an issue of fact on the issue as to proper notification and a poor case to appeal.
“As it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the IME scheduling letters addressed to John Canela provided sufficient notice that plaintiff’s assignor, Jhonffi Canela (misspelled “Johnfi” by plaintiff in the summons and complaint), was to appear for the IMEs, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
A motion loss is not a final merits ruling
The Civil Court denied both parties’ motions and made CPLR 3212(g) findings narrowing the remaining issues. On appeal, Chubb supplied no sufficient basis to disturb the findings in the provider’s favor. The notice issue remained unresolved as a matter of law.
That is narrower than saying any spelling error automatically defeats a no-show defense. Compare the actual notice, the NF-2 and the motion record. The provider’s own pleading also contained a different spelling, but that did not establish the sufficiency of Chubb’s letters.
Unitrin (2011) and Gaines (2025) concern the consequences of proven failure to attend properly noticed IMEs. Bay LS concerns the earlier question: was the particular assignor sufficiently notified? These are separate steps in reviewing the defense.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:
- Central Radiology: insurer confirmations and verification requests
- Parisien: no response to requests and a later objection
- Priority Medical: office-practice affidavits accepted
- Acupuncture Solutions: mailing proof and the bill-timing question
- Alleviation v Hertz: neither side established summary judgment
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
Verification, EUO and IME
Avalon Radiology required a new trial on denial timing after an EUO. The ruling did not finally decide benefits or create an unlimited verification toll.
Mar 17, 2021
Another Article 75 needed to be taken against AAA
Long Island attorney discusses Article 75 petition success against AAA master arbitrator decision in IME no-show case, highlighting systemic issues in no-fault arbitration.
Sep 16, 2016
Waiver of the Defense IME: No Interpreter, No Exam — De Sanchez v Trevz Trucking
De Sanchez v Trevz Trucking (1st Dept 2015): defendants waived their neurological IME by failing to provide an interpreter within the court-ordered deadline.
Feb 12, 2015
IME No-Show Proof: Why Vendor Letters Are Hearsay in New York No-Fault Cases
Quality Psychological v Travelers: SIGNET reports did not establish actual IME nonattendance. Provider summary judgment was affirmed.
May 16, 2013Frequently 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 is an IME no-show defense in New York no-fault cases?
It is a coverage defense based on failure to attend properly requested independent medical examinations. The insurer must establish its proof under the applicable authority. Bay LS concerned whether its notices sufficiently identified the assignor, not a final decision that benefits were payable.
What does an insurer have to prove to win on an IME no-show defense?
Its motion must establish legally sufficient requests and mailing, along with competent proof of nonattendance. The applicable timing and denial requirements depend on the governing authority and chronology. In Bay LS, the insurer did not eliminate a factual issue over the name used in the letters.
Can a misspelled name really defeat an IME no-show defense?
A material name discrepancy can prevent summary judgment. In Bay LS, the court could not find sufficient notice as a matter of law. It left a factual issue for trial; it did not hold that every typo defeats the defense or grant the provider final judgment.
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.
