Key Takeaway
Court rejects appeal argument raised for first time, emphasizing that appeals aren't opportunities to introduce new claims after initial proceedings conclude.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, healthcare providers must navigate complex procedural requirements when seeking reimbursement for medical services. One critical aspect involves compliance with independent medical examination (IME) requests from insurance companies. When providers or their assignors fail to appear for scheduled IMEs, insurers can deny payment for related medical bills.
The appellate process in no-fault cases follows strict procedural rules. Courts require parties to raise all relevant arguments during the initial proceedings. This principle prevents litigants from strategically withholding defenses or claims, then introducing them later if the initial case doesn’t go favorably. The rule ensures judicial efficiency and fairness to all parties involved.
This case demonstrates a common mistake in no-fault litigation: attempting to raise new arguments on appeal that weren’t presented to the lower court. Whether the issue involves IME scheduling procedures or substantiating no-show claims, parties must present their complete case from the beginning.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 51219(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“With respect to the bills that were denied based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), the only other argument plaintiff makes on appeal is that the address to which the IME scheduling letters were addressed improperly included an apartment number. However, that argument is not properly before this court as it is being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it”
Key Takeaway
Appeals courts will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, regardless of their potential merit. Healthcare providers must present all defenses regarding IME compliance issues during initial proceedings. This case reinforces that proper appellate strategy requires thorough preparation at the trial court level, not hoping for a second chance on appeal.
