Key Takeaway
Compas v Praetorian awarded the provider its third claim while dismissing seven others. Read the 2015 denial ruling beside Unitrin and Gaines.
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 provider won one of eight causes of action in Compas Medical v Praetorian (November 13, 2015). The insurer won the other seven. The difference was the third claim’s untimely denial and the absence of proof that its determination period had been tolled.
Historical note: Compas applied preclusion to one late-denied claim in 2015; Gaines (2025, First Department) required no timely disclaimer for the proven IME coverage defense before it, so the governing appellate authority matters.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2015)
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51667(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“However, with respect to the third cause of action, the record establishes that the claim at issue was not denied within 30 days of its receipt (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ) and defendant did not demonstrate that the 30-day claim determination period (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8) had been tolled. As a result, since defendant is precluded from asserting, with respect to this claim, its defense that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs and EUOs (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 ), plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment upon its third cause of action.”
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.
One claim, and a departmental distinction
For the first, second and fourth through eighth causes of action, the insurer proved timely scheduling letters, missed examinations and timely denials. On the third, the Appellate Term, Second Department applied Westchester Medical Center v Lincoln General and awarded the provider summary judgment, with the matter remitted for interest and attorney’s fees.
That result cannot be stated as a statewide rule that every late denial defeats an IME no-show defense. Unitrin (First Department, 2011) treated failure to attend properly requested IMEs as a coverage exception to preclusion. Gaines (First Department, 2025) likewise said a timely disclaimer was unnecessary for the proven IME coverage defense before it.
The archive records different appellate treatments. It does not establish that Compas was overruled. A present motion needs the governing department’s authority and the actual claim, request and denial chronology; simply counting 30 days leaves out the disputed legal issue.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:
- Vincent Medical: mailing, nonattendance and denial proof
- Acupuncture Solutions: mailing proof and the bill-timing question
- Priority Medical: office-practice affidavits accepted
- Central Radiology: insurer confirmations and verification requests
- Parisien: no response to requests and a later objection
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
Proving an IME No-Show: Doctor's Affidavit Held Sufficient in Trimed v ELRAC
Trimed v ELRAC: an affidavit from the doctor scheduled to perform the IMEs, tied to the address in the scheduling letters, proves non-appearance in NY no-fault.
Dec 1, 2010
The IME Recollection Issue: Proving an IME No-Show Years After the Missed Exam
Utica Acupuncture v Amica: an unexplained two-year recollection defeated IME summary judgment. Compare the separate 2025 EUO time-lapse decision.
Mar 25, 2017
The Alrof curse continues
Delta Diagnostic v Auto One: both sides were denied summary judgment. Sworn examiner statements did not demonstrate knowledge of the IME no-shows.
Jul 21, 2015
The IME no-show at trial – the eagle has arisen
Eagle Surgical Supply v GEICO highlights the critical requirement that insurance companies must present witnesses with personal knowledge to prove IME no-shows at trial.
Aug 6, 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.
