Key Takeaway
Three Maya Assurance decisions reversed insurer summary judgment for inadequate IME-notice mailing proof. Compare the actual findings and related cases.
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.
Three decisions issued on October 13, 2016 reversed summary judgment for Maya Assurance. The shared defect was proof of mailing: Harvard Medical found the supporting affidavit insufficient, and Liberty Chiropractic and Sharp View adopted its reasoning. None awarded judgment to the provider.
Historical note: Harvard Medical (2016) and its two companion decisions rejected the mailing proof on those motions; they do not establish that every scheduling irregularity defeats an IME defense.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
The shared mailing-proof defect
Harvard Medical v Maya asked whether the affidavit sufficiently described a standard office practice that ensured notices were properly addressed and mailed. It did not. Without that showing, Maya had not established failures to attend duly scheduled IMEs.
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.
Liberty Chiropractic and Sharp View reversed the insurer’s summary judgment orders for the reasons given in Harvard. The three decisions do not describe a mandatory certified-mail procedure or make findings about Maya’s staffing, training or company-wide conduct.
Mailing and attendance need their own proof
By MD’s mailing evidence established the presumption of receipt; the opponent’s affidavit did not rebut it. Here, Maya had not established the mailing foundation in the first place.
Proof of nonattendance is another step. Acupuncture Pain Management discusses affidavits from the examining professional and scheduler. A witness’s account of an empty appointment does not, by itself, establish that the notice was properly sent.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original case references (2016)
Harvard Med., P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51529(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Liberty Chiropractic, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51531(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51534(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub.
- By MD: mailing proof and the presumption of receipt
- Acupuncture Pain Management: proof of nonattendance
- Valdan: reply evidence and the address known at mailing
- Success Rehab: the post-claim IME examination date
- Beckles: the NF-3 and duly noticed examinations
For review of a particular notice, claim file or motion, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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 disclaimer substantiated
Longevity v Citiwide: pre-claim IME notices, later written verification and a timely denial. The ruling did not pause every deadline or excuse poor scheduling.
Dec 26, 2017
No-show troubles
Three 2015 no-show decisions distinguish IME proof from a provider EUO and explain why neither side obtained summary judgment.
Nov 17, 2015
IME no show reversal based upon the new 800 pound guerilla: proof of the no show
Long Island court ruling on IME no-show reversals and proof requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases, featuring Jacoby Chiropractic decision.
Dec 8, 2013
Donde esta Unitrin?
Vincent Medical accepted IME mailing, nonattendance and denial proof. Jason's Unitrin comparison concerns coverage preclusion, not address verification.
Sep 26, 2011Was 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.
