No-show troubles

Compas Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51590(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

” In support of a claim that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs), defendant submitted affidavits and an affirmation from the medical professionals who were to perform the IMEs which stated in a conclusory manner that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at the duly scheduled IMEs. These affidavits and affirmation were insufficient to establish defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment”

Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51591(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“The doctor failed to demonstrate by personal knowledge (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ), or by any other appropriate means (see e.g. Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146, 2012 NY Slip Op 51628 ), the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for both of the IMEs. Therefore defendant failed to establish its entitlement as a matter of law to summary judgment dismissing the complaint”

Village Med. Supply, Inc. v Travco Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51599(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“However, as plaintiff notes, defendant’s motion papers do not unequivocally demonstrate that defendant’s counsel was present on the dates of the scheduled EUOs. As a result, defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question”

Related Articles

• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
• Unitrin Nassau County IME no-show legal analysis through front and back door channels
• IME no-show victory case analysis
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law