Key Takeaway
Court finds insufficient proof of IME mailing in no-fault case, highlighting importance of proper documentation when claiming patient no-show for scheduled examinations.
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.
When Insurance Companies Fail to Prove IME Notice Was Properly Mailed
In New York no-fault insurance law, Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a critical tool for insurers to evaluate claims. However, when a patient doesn’t appear for an IME, the insurance company must prove they provided proper notice. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates what happens when that proof falls short.
The case K.O. Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. involved a provider seeking payment for services that were denied based on the patient’s failure to appear for scheduled IMEs. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, arguing they had properly scheduled the examinations and the patient simply didn’t show up. However, the court found their documentation insufficient to establish that the IME scheduling letters were actually mailed.
This decision underscores a common issue in no-fault litigation: the burden of proving proper mailing procedures. Unlike situations where IME letters do not need to be sent to provider, insurers must still demonstrate they followed correct protocols when notifying patients. Cases involving no-show substantiated claims often turn on these procedural details.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
K.O. Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51158(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
I reviewed the papers. The IME vendor changed the affidavit that was sent and inter-changed the defunct “Crosslands” with “Examworks” (the successor) entity. There was no discussion regarding the jural relationship between the two entities. I only realized that when I reviewed the papers after receiving the decision. Ironically, I was not the only one to miss that salient point. The Appellate Time signed an OSC granting us a stay of trial and granted the application motion to stay. Neither of these are easy feats. More finely tuned eyes saw the mistake. I will say this: they have a good set of proof-readers at that court. They find things all the time I never find.
“The Civil Court properly denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims that had been denied based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for the IMEs, as the proof submitted by defendant was not sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the IME scheduling letters at issue had been properly mailed”
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies must provide adequate proof of proper mailing procedures when denying claims based on IME no-shows. This case highlights how even seemingly minor documentation issues, such as entity name changes without establishing corporate relationships, can undermine an insurer’s defense and prevent summary judgment.
Related Articles
How New York Mailing & Proof of Service Law Has Evolved
Verified February 2026This topic has been shaped by appellate rulings over many years. Explore the timeline below.
- Certified Mail RRR Sufficient to Prove Mailing
Proof of actually mailing via certified mail with return receipt requested is sufficient to prima facie demonstrate proper mailing.
- "I Was Employed with [BLANK] When the Mailing Occurred"
Court scrutinizes the adequacy of affidavits attesting to mailing procedures — vague averments questioned.
- The Appellate Division Weighs In on the Mailing Paradigm
Appellate Division provides first comprehensive guidance on what proof of mailing requires.
- First Department's 'Venom' Decision on Mailing
First Department establishes its own mailing proof requirements — setting a high bar for insurers.
- How Do You Overcome the Presumption of Mailing?
Analysis of how claimants can overcome the presumption of proper mailing — non-receipt testimony and office procedure gaps.
- Mailing Discrepancies and Proving Non-Receipt
Discrepancies in mailing records and methods to affirmatively prove non-receipt of documents.
- Mailing from the Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals weighs in on mailing standards — a pivotal, binding precedent for all lower courts.
- IME No-Show: It Was Not Mailed
Hub article: comprehensive analysis of proof-of-mailing standards. Courts have progressively tightened requirements — proper mailing affidavits with detailed office procedures are now essential.
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
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021NF-3 is the operative document
Court ruling confirms NF-3 forms trigger 15-day IME request deadline, and patient no-shows at two scheduled exams justify insurance coverage disclaimer.
Mar 22, 2021The first pure Unitrin Appellate Term holding
Appellate Term ruling establishes precedent for IME no-show cases, showing how insurers can prove mailing and non-appearance to defeat no-fault claims.
Aug 25, 2011IME no show disclaimer substantiated
Court ruling on IME no-show disclaimer timing - denial valid after verification received despite prior grounds for disclaimer existing under NY no-fault law.
Dec 26, 2017No-show troubles
NY courts rule on IME no-show cases requiring personal knowledge proof. Three 2015 decisions show insufficient conclusory affidavits fail summary judgment standards.
Nov 17, 2015IME 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, 2013Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Independent Medical Examination (IME)?
An IME is a medical examination conducted by a doctor chosen by the insurance company to evaluate the claimant's injuries and treatment. In no-fault cases, insurers use IMEs to determine whether ongoing treatment is medically necessary, whether the injuries are causally related to the accident, and whether the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. The results of an IME can form the basis for a claim denial or cut-off of benefits.
Can I refuse to attend an IME?
No. Under New York's no-fault regulations, attending an IME when properly scheduled is a condition precedent to receiving benefits. However, the insurer must follow specific scheduling procedures — including providing reasonable notice and accommodating certain scheduling conflicts. If the insurer fails to properly schedule the IME or you have a legitimate reason for missing it, the resulting denial may be challenged.
How should I prepare for an Independent Medical Examination?
Be honest and thorough when describing your symptoms, limitations, and treatment history. Arrive on time with photo ID and be prepared for a physical examination that may test your range of motion and functional abilities. The IME doctor works for the insurance company and may spend limited time with you, so clearly communicate your ongoing symptoms. Your attorney can advise you on what to expect and review the IME report for accuracy afterward.
What is maximum medical improvement (MMI) in no-fault cases?
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) means the point at which your condition has stabilized and further treatment is unlikely to produce significant improvement. When an IME doctor determines you have reached MMI, the insurer may cut off further no-fault benefits. However, reaching MMI does not necessarily mean you have fully recovered — you may still have permanent limitations. Your treating physician can dispute the MMI finding through a detailed rebuttal affirmation.
Can I challenge an IME doctor's findings in my no-fault case?
Yes. If an IME results in a denial or cut-off of benefits, your treating physician can submit a sworn affirmation rebutting the IME findings point by point. The rebuttal should reference specific clinical findings, objective test results, and range-of-motion measurements that contradict the IME conclusions. At arbitration or trial, the fact-finder weighs both the IME report and the treating physician's opinion. An experienced no-fault attorney can identify weaknesses in the IME report.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.