Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a cornerstone of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, allowing insurers to verify the medical necessity of claimed treatments. When patients fail to appear for scheduled IMEs, insurers often seek to deny claims entirely. However, proving a “no-show” requires more than just documentation — it demands competent evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Appellate Term’s decision in S.A. Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. provides crucial guidance on what constitutes sufficient proof of non-appearance. This ruling clarifies the evidentiary standards that have evolved since earlier decisions like those discussed in our analysis of substantiated no-shows and cases where IME notices weren’t properly mailed.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
S.A. Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co**.**, 48 Misc 3d 128(A)(App. Term 2d 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 plaintiffs’ assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 ). Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance, including the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and chiropractor/acupuncturist, attesting to the affiants’ personal knowledge of their office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424; Harmonic Physical Therapy v Encompass Home & Auto Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 146, 2015 NY Slip Op 50733 ).”
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.
Legal Significance
The S.A. Medical decision clarifies critical evidentiary standards for proving IME no-shows, rejecting reliance on mere office records or administrative documentation. The Appellate Term explicitly stated that the Civil Court erred in concluding defendant lacked competent evidence of non-appearance. The key to sufficiency was the sworn affidavits from the examining physician and chiropractor/acupuncturist, each attesting to personal knowledge of their office practices and procedures when patients fail to appear.
This personal knowledge requirement distinguishes competent evidence from hearsay or speculation. The examining professionals didn’t merely state that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear—they explained their offices’ established protocols for documenting no-shows and confirmed that following those protocols revealed non-appearance in this case. This connection between standard procedures and specific application to the case at issue satisfied evidentiary requirements.
The decision builds on American Trust Insurance Co. v Lucas and related precedent establishing that IME no-show proof requires more than clerical affidavits. While office staff might maintain appointment calendars or generate computerized records, examining physicians possess superior knowledge of examination procedures and can testify with greater authority about whether examinations occurred. Their professional involvement in the IME process gives their testimony enhanced credibility and probative value.
Significantly, the court rejected arguments that underlying office records must be produced alongside physician affidavits. The affidavits themselves, when properly sworn and demonstrating personal knowledge of office practices, constitute competent evidence without requiring attachment of appointment books, sign-in sheets, or other documentary support. This principle streamlines IME no-show proof and prevents unnecessary evidentiary disputes over administrative record-keeping.
Practical Implications
For insurance carriers seeking to establish IME no-shows, S.A. Medical provides a clear roadmap. Carriers must obtain sworn affidavits from the examining physicians or other medical professionals who would have conducted the IMEs. These affidavits should describe the office’s standard procedures for scheduling examinations, confirming appointments, documenting attendance, and recording no-shows. The affidavits must then explain how following those procedures demonstrated non-appearance in the specific case.
Generic affidavits stating only that “the patient failed to appear” without explaining office procedures or the affiant’s personal knowledge will likely prove insufficient. Instead, affidavits should detail how the affiant knows about office practices (through personal involvement in establishing them, daily participation in examination procedures, or review of office protocols), describe what those practices entail, and connect the practices to the conclusion that non-appearance occurred.
For plaintiff providers challenging IME no-show defenses, the decision confirms that attacking physician affidavits requires more than asserting they’re self-serving or conclusory. Providers must submit contrary evidence suggesting appearance occurred—such as patient affidavits claiming attendance, travel receipts or GPS data showing presence at the examination location, or evidence that the insurer failed to properly schedule or confirm the appointment.
The decision also affects discovery strategy. Providers may seek to depose examining physicians to challenge their personal knowledge of office procedures or probe whether stated protocols were actually followed. However, the existence of sworn affidavits attesting to personal knowledge creates substantial obstacles to defeating prima facie showings through discovery challenges alone.
Key Takeaway
The Appellate Term emphasized that sworn physician affidavits demonstrating personal knowledge of office practices constitute competent evidence of patient non-appearance at IMEs. This ruling reinforces that insurers cannot rely solely on administrative records but must present testimony from medical professionals with direct knowledge of their examination procedures and no-show protocols. The affidavits must connect standard office procedures to specific findings of non-appearance in the case at issue, but need not attach underlying documentary records when the affiant properly attests to personal knowledge and established practices.
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
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
IME no show – complied with Neptune, AT v. Vance and 3.5(b); 3.6(b)
Insurance carriers can successfully deny no-fault claims when patients fail to appear for scheduled IMEs, provided proper procedures are followed for verification requests.
Sep 29, 2016
Delay for IME and EUO no shows
Power Supply Inc v Praetorian case establishes that insurers can maintain delay status for multiple no-shows until final EUO non-appearance triggers denial.
Mar 19, 2015
An IME no show case
Analysis of Infinity Health v Redland Insurance case where insurer failed to prove proper IME scheduling due to incorrect zip code on mailing notices.
May 16, 2013
IME No-Show – Personal Knowledge
Radiology Today accepted the examiners' sworn no-show proof. Compare office-practice, personal-knowledge and business-record evidence in later IME cases.
Nov 5, 2009Was 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.
