Key Takeaway
Court finds serious concerns when IME doctors claim to be in multiple locations simultaneously, potentially establishing grounds for bad faith insurance claims.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a cornerstone of no-fault insurance claims in New York, designed to provide objective medical assessments of injury claims. However, a recent appellate court decision highlights a disturbing practice that could undermine the entire IME process: doctors claiming to be in multiple locations at the same time.
The case of MB Advanced Equipment, Inc. v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. exposes what appears to be a systematic problem with IME scheduling and documentation. When examining evidence related to IME scheduling procedures, the court discovered that medical professionals had sworn under oath to being in different locations than those specified in official IME notices. This discrepancy raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire examination process and could have far-reaching implications for how insurance companies handle New York no-fault insurance claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
MB Advanced Equip., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50863(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“However, in opposition, plaintiff submitted affidavits in which the doctor and chiropractor had previously sworn, under penalty of perjury, that when the IMEs were scheduled to occur, they were at a location other than the address set forth in the IME scheduling letters. To the extent defendant’s counsel asserted in a reply affirmation that the discrepancy was due to typographical errors in the prior affidavits, counsel did not demonstrate that she possessed personal knowledge sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the doctor and chiropractor were at the correct location when the IMEs were to be held.”
This is terrific. Really? Heaven forbid this is true; this would be the predicate of a bad faith action.
Key Takeaway
This decision reveals potential fraud in the IME process, where medical professionals may be claiming impossible schedules or locations. The court’s rejection of the “typographical error” defense suggests that proper documentation and verification of IME logistics is crucial. Insurance companies must ensure their medical examiners can actually be where they claim to be, or face potential bad faith liability.
