Lynn Carter

Independent Medical Examinations play a pivotal role in New York’s no-fault insurance system. When an injured party fails to appear for a scheduled IME, insurance companies may deny claims based on non-cooperation. However, insurers must meet specific evidentiary requirements to successfully assert an IME no-show defense, including providing testimony from someone with personal knowledge that the examination was properly scheduled and that the claimant failed to appear.

The requirement for personal knowledge creates interesting questions when IME scheduling companies use administrative procedures that obscure individual responsibility. What happens when the contact person listed on IME scheduling letters does not actually exist? Does the use of a pseudonym or fictitious employee name undermine an insurer’s ability to prove an IME no-show defense?

The MCMC “Lynn Carter” Controversy

The case of Brand Medical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc. emerged from a discovery made during an unrelated trial several years earlier. During that proceeding, it was revealed that MCMC, a major IME scheduling vendor, had been using “Lynn Carter” as a contact name on its IME scheduling letters. The problem? Lynn Carter was not a real employee. MCMC acknowledged that the name was a pseudonym, and no actual person named Lynn Carter worked for the company.

This revelation raised serious questions about the validity of IME scheduling procedures across numerous cases. If the designated contact person did not exist, could insurers relying on MCMC’s services prove that their IME scheduling letters were properly sent? More importantly, could they prove non-appearance when the person supposedly responsible for verifying attendance was fictional?

The practice of using fictional employee names appears to have been an administrative convenience designed to route calls to appropriate staff members regardless of who specifically handled each case. However, this convenience came with potential legal complications when insurers needed to establish personal knowledge of an IME no-show.

Case Background

Brand Medical Supply involved a medical equipment provider seeking to recover no-fault benefits. The insurance company, ELRAC (Enterprise Leasing Company of New York), moved for summary judgment based on the assignor’s failure to appear for scheduled IMEs. The IME scheduling letters instructed the assignor to contact “Lynn Carter” if rescheduling was needed.

The provider moved to renew its opposition to the summary judgment motion based on trial transcript evidence from an unrelated case, which revealed that Lynn Carter was a pseudonym and that no such employee existed at MCMC. The provider argued that this fact should change the prior determination granting summary judgment to the insurer.

The Civil Court denied the renewal motion, and the provider appealed to the Appellate Term, Second Department, which had to determine whether the use of a fictitious contact name undermined the insurer’s IME no-show defense.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 51723(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)

This all came about at the famous trial in front of Judge Levine a few years ago. Michael Kopelevich I think was the attorney for the provider. The question raised was who is Lynn Carter an MCMC stated she did not exist. This is probably not a good marketing technique for an IME vendor.

“By order entered July 20, 2012, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to renew its opposition to defendant’s motion, based upon a trial transcript from an unrelated case, which transcript set forth that the name that defendant’s IME scheduling letters said to contact to reschedule the IMEs, Lynn Carter, was a pseudonym—there was no such employee—and that this was a fact which, plaintiff asserted, would change the prior determination since, in the instant case, plaintiff’s assignor was also instructed to contact Lynn [*2]Carter if plaintiff’s assignor needed to reschedule the IMEs. By order entered August 14, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion.”

“As noted by the Civil Court, since there was no evidence proffered that plaintiff’s assignor ever even attempted to reschedule the IMEs, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant’s use of a pseudonym, the propriety of which we do not pass upon, would change the prior determination”

Why Lynn Carter? Do we have Dixie Carter , Jimmy Carter or Gary Carter fans at MCMC?

Legal Significance

The court’s decision reveals important limitations on procedural challenges to IME no-show defenses. While the Appellate Term notably declined to opine on the propriety of using pseudonyms in IME scheduling correspondence, the court found that the fictitious name issue did not affect the outcome in this particular case because the assignor never attempted to contact the listed representative or reschedule the examination.

This reasoning suggests that the use of a pseudonym might matter in cases where the injured party actually tried to use the contact information provided. If an assignor attempted to call and reschedule but could not reach the designated person because that person did not exist, the fictitious name could potentially undermine the insurer’s claim that the examination was properly scheduled and that non-appearance constituted non-cooperation.

The court’s express refusal to “pass upon” the propriety of using pseudonyms leaves this question unresolved. This careful language suggests judicial concern about the practice while avoiding a definitive ruling in a case where the issue was not outcome-determinative. The decision therefore provides no safe harbor for IME vendors or insurers who employ fictional contact names in their correspondence.

From an evidentiary perspective, the decision raises questions about personal knowledge requirements. If an insurer needs to prove that an IME was properly scheduled and that the assignor failed to appear, who can provide the necessary testimony when the designated contact person does not exist? The decision does not address this issue, likely because the insurer had already obtained summary judgment before the pseudonym issue was discovered.

Practical Implications

For insurance companies and IME scheduling vendors, this decision provides a cautionary tale about administrative convenience versus legal requirements. While the use of generic or fictitious names may streamline call routing and customer service, it creates potential vulnerabilities in litigation. When IME no-show defenses reach trial, insurers must produce witnesses with personal knowledge of both the scheduling process and the non-appearance. Fictitious employees cannot provide such testimony.

Healthcare providers defending against IME no-show claims should investigate whether the contact person listed on scheduling correspondence actually exists and had personal knowledge of the case. While discovery of a pseudonym alone may not defeat an IME no-show defense, it could prove relevant if the assignor attempted to reschedule or if the insurer cannot produce a witness with actual personal knowledge of the scheduling and non-appearance.

For IME scheduling companies, the decision suggests that transparent business practices serve long-term interests better than administrative shortcuts. Using real employee names or clearly designated role-based contacts (such as “Scheduling Department” rather than a fictitious individual) would avoid these questions entirely while still achieving operational flexibility.

The decision also highlights the value of thorough discovery in no-fault litigation. The revelation about Lynn Carter came from trial testimony in an unrelated case, demonstrating how information developed in one matter can have implications across numerous other cases involving the same vendor or insurer.

Related Articles

• IME no-show personal knowledge requirements in New York
• Personal knowledge standards for EUO non-appearances
• When assignor fails to show for both IME and EUO
• How attorney statements can support EUO defense claims