Key Takeaway
Mind & Body Acupuncture v ELRAC: the court declined an apartment-number objection first raised on appeal and affirmed the insurer's judgment.
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: Mind & Body Acupuncture (2015) declined this unpreserved address objection; it did not decide the correct apartment number or establish an exception-free rule for every appeal.
An objection to the apartment number came too late in Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v ELRAC: the provider had not raised it below. On August 5, 2015, the Appellate Term, Second Department affirmed summary judgment for the insurer. That result did not establish that the address was correct.
The issue left outside the appeal
The court separately upheld the insurer’s evidence of its standard practice for mailing denial forms. For the IME-denied bills, the added apartment number was the provider’s only remaining appellate argument, and the court declined to consider it. The opinion did not find that the claimant received the notices or that every apartment-number discrepancy is harmless.
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.
The remaining bills involved fee-schedule reductions and a same-day evaluation charge. Those grounds were addressed separately; the whole complaint was not dismissed solely because of the missed IMEs. Raise an address objection in the motion papers, with the documents needed to decide it. It is not authority for the broader assertion that an appellate court can never consider a new issue, whatever the circumstances.
Original court excerpt
The original post reproduced this passage from the court’s opinion:
“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”
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- MB Advanced: conflicting affidavits about the examination location
- T & J: sworn statements without demonstrated personal knowledge
- Marina: mailing and nonattendance proof that supported dismissal
- PR Medical: a delay letter that did not establish tolling
- Valdan: different denial grounds across four claims
For review of a particular claim, our no-fault defense practice can assess the notices, denials and motion papers. Contact the office to discuss the file. For broader background, see New York no-fault insurance law.
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 – reasonableness not enterained
Court finds IME requests reasonable despite patient's prior IME attendance, ruling no-shows bar no-fault benefits regardless of reasonableness objections.
Oct 13, 2016
Non-disruptive representative allowed at IME
Court rules that having a non-disruptive representative present during an IME doesn't prevent defendants from conducting meaningful medical examinations under CPLR 3121.
Apr 9, 2015
When an IME Went Wrong: Can No-Fault Insurers Be Liable for Examiner Negligence?
New York court holds no-fault insurers may face liability when IME physicians injure claimants, analyzing negligent selection and supervision of independent contractors.
Jun 11, 2013
IME Reports Are Entitled to Qualified Privilege Against Defamation Claims
Learn about IME reports and qualified privilege against defamation claims in NY personal injury cases.
Jan 29, 2010Was 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.
