Key Takeaway
Compas Medical v NY Central Mutual: inadequate IME proof and disputed fee reductions left the insurer without summary 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: Compas Medical (2016) addressed the foundation of the IME statements and disputed fee reductions, not a fixed age limit for affidavits.
Compas Medical v New York Central Mutual involved two unsuccessful routes to summary judgment. On March 17, 2016, the Appellate Term, Second Department affirmed the denial of the insurer’s motion: the IME proof lacked a personal-knowledge foundation, and the provider raised a factual issue about fee-schedule reductions.
The fee-schedule issue was separate
The chiropractor’s and doctor’s sworn statements did not demonstrate personal knowledge of the assignor’s failure to appear. That gap defeated the IME ground for every claim. On six causes of action, however, its litigation examiner did make an initial showing that fee reductions were proper. The provider’s opposing evidence created a triable issue, defeating judgment on that separate ground too.
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 historical parenthetical refers to Alrof. The opinion itself cites Fogel, Bright Medical Supply and Quality Health Products in its no-show discussion; it does not expressly cite Alrof. His reference to a twelve-month recollection gap concerns another case. Compas does not set an affidavit-age limit, prescribe a mandatory waiting period at an appointment, or decide that a conclusory motion submission permanently extinguishes the defense.
Jason’s original note
Jason’s original 2016 comment follows. His Alrof shorthand and the reference to another case’s twelve-month gap are distinguished from Compas’s own citations and holding above.
(The court cited to Alrof and Bright Supply)
We saw the Appellate Term First Department case holding that a 12 month gap between IME and affidavit required a showing in the affidavit as to the basis of personal knowledge. Having not seen the affidavit, I cannot opine on what the deficiency is.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- T & J: sworn statements without demonstrated personal knowledge
- Delta Diagnostic: why both summary-judgment requests failed
- Three 2015 decisions on inadequate IME and EUO proof
- Utica: the unexplained basis of a two-year recollection
- MB Advanced: conflicting affidavits about the examination location
- SIGNET reports and the problem of proving actual nonattendance
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 loses on lack of personal knowledge allegatiob
Sutphin v Hereford: mailing was established, but IME nonappearance remained disputed. The complaint was reinstated and neither side received summary judgment.
May 20, 2016
Insufficient proof that the IME letters were not received
By MD v NY Central Mutual: mailing-practice affidavits, the presumption of receipt, and the separate proof needed for an IME no-show defense.
Aug 20, 2014
IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
Brooklyn Heights: IME notice, denial forms mailed to three recipients, and the provider's unanswered duplicate-mailing argument in a 2012 appeal.
Jan 10, 2013
Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Learn about IME no-shows in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert legal guidance from experienced attorneys. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.
Oct 26, 2019Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
Who should sign an IME no-show affidavit in a New York no-fault case?
The witness must supply an adequate basis for the asserted knowledge. In Compas, the scheduled chiropractor and doctor provided sworn statements but did not demonstrate personal knowledge of nonattendance. Merely choosing an examiner as the signer does not establish that foundation.
Why did the insurer lose in Compas Med v New York Central Mutual?
Its IME statements lacked the required personal-knowledge foundation. It also failed to obtain judgment on separate fee-schedule grounds because the provider raised a triable issue about the reductions. The two reasons should not be collapsed into a single no-show ruling.
Does a conclusory no-show affidavit end the insurer's case?
Not necessarily. Compas affirmed the denial of the insurer's summary-judgment motion. It did not hold that an inadequate affidavit permanently extinguished every defense or award the provider judgment on the disputed claims.
Was 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.
