Key Takeaway
Alleviation v Maya: the insurer's motion failed because timely IME-letter mailing was not established. The 2015 appeal did not award the provider benefits.
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: Alleviation rejected the insurer’s 2015 mailing proof, not the claim’s ultimate merits; the later Gaines decision likewise required a properly noticed IME, while distinguishing pre-claim notices.
A failed motion, not a final benefits award
In Alleviation Medical Services v Maya Assurance, 2015 NY Slip Op 51238(U), the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order dismissing the provider’s complaint. Maya’s motion papers had not established that the IME scheduling letters were timely mailed. The insurer’s motion was denied; the court did not grant the provider judgment on its bills.
Jason’s question below is his August 2015 reaction. The opinion decides one appeal, not the outcome of every Maya 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.
Jason’s August 2015 note
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51238(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that defendant’s motion papers failed to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs of plaintiff’s assignor had been timely mailed”
Why is every Maya IME no-show case getting reversed or ending up in disaster?
What the mailing evidence must do
The problem was proof of timely mailing. The opinion does not require every mailing witness to remember personally putting each letter in the post. In Tri-Mount, evidence describing standard office practices established mailing of the scheduling letters.
Compare the actual affidavits and dates before making a mailing objection. A nonappearance foundation issue is different from a missing mailing foundation. Neither is a medical opinion on whether treatment was necessary. The opinion supplies no audit of Maya’s mailing operations. Jason’s question is preserved as commentary on the cases he was seeing.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show encyclopedia hub for the case directory and the distinction between notice, attendance and denial evidence.
- Another Maya appeal addressing IME-letter mailing
- The evidentiary showing supporting dismissal
- Jason’s later Maya mailing note
- Brand Medical: the address objection
- Tri-Mount: office-practice mailing evidence
- MDJ Medical: notice and nonappearance proved
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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
Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Center for Orthopedic Surgery addressed reasonable IME requests and proof of representation. Mailing still matters; Jason's 2011 prediction is kept in context.
Mar 30, 2011
IME no-show/ failure to object during claims stage is fatal to later objection
Parisien rejected a late reasonableness objection where no response to IME requests was alleged. It does not cure defective notice or authorize skipping exams.
Jun 10, 2017
The backtracking of Unitrin
Long Island court cases analyzing IME scheduling compliance under Insurance Department Regulations, examining when no-show denials fail due to improper timing requirements.
Oct 6, 2015
This one managed to get published
New York court case American Transit v. Megan Ash addresses Independent Medical Examination procedures in no-fault insurance claims and provider obligations.
Oct 1, 2013Was 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.
