IME no-show/ failure to object during claims stage is fatal to later objection

The insurer won summary judgment in Parisien v Citiwide Auto Leasing (May 19, 2017). Neither the provider nor the assignor was alleged to have responded to the IME requests. On that record, the Appellate Term, Second Department said their later reasonableness objections should not have been heard.

Historical note: Parisien (2017) rejected a reasonableness objection where no response to the requests was alleged; Unitrin separately requires proof of compliant requests and nonattendance.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2017)

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.

Responding is different from refusing attendance

The Civil Court had treated the insurer’s failure to establish a reasonably convenient examination time as a factual issue. The appellate court rejected that reasoning in light of the complete absence of any alleged response to the requests. It reversed the denial of the insurer’s motion.

The decision concerns an unraised reasonableness objection. It does not say silence cures every notice defect or that a claimant can refuse an examination without risking benefits simply by calling the request unreasonable. Unitrin separately required the insurer to establish compliant requests and actual nonattendance.

For a scheduling problem, preserve the request, the written response and any rescheduling correspondence. Ask counsel to assess the objection and attendance obligation promptly. For a motion, distinguish a challenge to convenience from a failure of mailing or identification proof, as illustrated by the Bay LS and Central Radiology notes below.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare:

• Bay LS: a name discrepancy left notice for trial
• Central Radiology: insurer confirmations and verification requests
• Acupuncture Solutions: mailing proof and the bill-timing question
• Priority Medical: office-practice affidavits accepted
• Vincent Medical: mailing, nonattendance and denial proof

For review of a particular IME dispute, contact the office with the scheduling letters, mailing proof and relevant claim papers.