Key Takeaway
Court ruling confirms that failing to respond to IME requests during claims stage prevents later objections to their reasonableness in no-fault insurance cases.
The requirement for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) remains one of the most contentious aspects of New York No-fault insurance law. Insurance companies regularly schedule these examinations as part of their claims review process, and injured parties often object to their timing, location, or frequency. However, as demonstrated in recent court decisions, the timing of such objections is crucial to their validity.
A common scenario involves plaintiffs who fail to appear for scheduled IMEs without any prior communication or objection, only to later challenge the reasonableness of the examination requests when litigation ensues. This tactical approach has proven consistently unsuccessful in New York courts, as established precedent makes clear that procedural requirements must be followed during the initial claims process.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Parisien v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 2017 NY Slip Op 50684(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion.
The Civil Court erroneously held that, because defendant had failed to establish that it had scheduled the examinations at a time that was reasonably convenient for the assignor, there is an issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the IME requests. The no-fault regulations provide that an eligible injured person “shall submit” to IMEs “when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1), as an assignor’s appearance for a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy. As plaintiff never alleged, let alone demonstrated, that he or his assignor had responded in any way to the IME requests, plaintiff’s objections to the reasonableness of the requests should not have been heard”
It is great when the same issue keeps popping it, Plaintiff expects a different result and, surprise, nothing changes.
Key Takeaway
Courts consistently hold that parties cannot remain silent during the claims process and later challenge IME requests in litigation. The failure to respond to or object to examination scheduling during the administrative stage waives the right to contest reasonableness later, making timely communication essential for preserving objection rights under New York’s no-fault regulations.
