Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Understanding IME Scheduling Requirements: When Attorney Notification Matters
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, allowing insurers to assess the medical necessity and extent of claimed injuries. However, the procedural requirements for properly scheduling these examinations can make or break a no-show defense. A recent Appellate Term decision highlights a crucial distinction: simply mailing IME notices to an attorney doesn’t automatically establish proper scheduling unless there’s proof that the attorney actually represents the patient.
This ruling underscores the importance of documentation in no-fault cases, where IME scheduling procedures must be meticulously followed to support subsequent denials. The case demonstrates how technical deficiencies in proving the attorney-client relationship can undermine what might otherwise appear to be a substantiated no-show defense.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50952(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
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.
” To the extent that copies of the IME scheduling letters were sent to an attorney, there is nothing in the record to suggest that plaintiff’s assignor was represented by that attorney. Consequently, defendant’s moving papers failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled (see Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 43 Misc 3d 127, 2014 NY Slip Op 50476 ; Infinity Health Prods., Ltd., 39 Misc 3d 140, 2013 NY Slip Op 50751; cf. Star Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 131, 2006 NY Slip Op 50344 ) and, thus, that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”
It looks like upon proof in the record showing that the Assignor is represented by counsel, mailing of the letter to counsel will proof a no-show defense. This would be in accordance with Marte-Rosario.
Key Takeaway
This decision emphasizes that insurance companies cannot rely solely on mailing IME notices to attorneys without establishing that an attorney-client relationship actually exists. The burden remains on the insurer to demonstrate proper scheduling through adequate documentation of representation, highlighting the procedural precision required in no-fault litigation.
Related Articles
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
Unwelcome visitors at an IME
Second Department allows attorneys at IMEs in Henderson v Ross, disagreeing with First Department on transparency in New York no-fault insurance examinations.
Feb 16, 2017
The Alrof curse continues
Delta Diagnostic v Auto One: both sides were denied summary judgment. Sworn examiner statements did not demonstrate knowledge of the IME no-shows.
Jul 21, 2015
The IME no-show at trial – the eagle has arisen
Eagle Surgical Supply v GEICO highlights the critical requirement that insurance companies must present witnesses with personal knowledge to prove IME no-shows at trial.
Aug 6, 2013
The failure to attend IMEs is now considered a Chubb coverage defense
Landmark 2011 Unitrin case establishes IME no-show as Chubb coverage defense, allowing retroactive claim denials regardless of initial denial reasons in NY no-fault law.
Mar 20, 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.
