The 'Lynn Carter' Problem: Fictitious IME Contacts and No-Fault No-Show Defenses in New York

The “Lynn Carter” case was about reopening a lost motion, not judicial approval of a fictitious scheduling contact. In Brand Medical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., the provider produced new information about a pseudonym but no evidence that the patient had tried to reschedule the missed IMEs. That missing connection controlled the renewal appeal.

Historical note — Last reviewed: September 2026. Brand v ELRAC (2017) applied the renewal requirements of CPLR 2221(e). It did not decide whether using a pseudonym was proper, establish an IME-notice template, or excuse a failure to prove mailing and nonappearance.

The issue was renewal, not a fresh trial on missed examinations

The insurer had already obtained summary judgment dismissing the provider’s no-fault suit in 2012. The provider later sought leave to renew its opposition, relying on a transcript from an unrelated trial. That transcript indicated that “Lynn Carter,” the contact named for rescheduling in the IME letters, was a pseudonym rather than an actual employee.

In Brand Medical Supply v ELRAC, 58 Misc 3d 128(A), decided December 8, 2017, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of renewal. The missing link was evidence that this patient’s attempt to reschedule had been affected: no attempt was shown. The court expressly left the propriety of the pseudonym undecided.

That narrow procedural posture matters. The court was not deciding a new negligence claim against an examination vendor or making a general finding that a scheduling practice was harmless. It was considering whether the newly offered information would change the prior result in this particular benefits dispute.

What new evidence must do on a renewal motion

CPLR 2221(e) requires new facts not presented on the earlier motion that would change its determination, or a relevant change in law. When the motion relies on new facts, it must also give a reasonable justification for not presenting them earlier.

“New” and “important to this result” are separate requirements. Information can be genuinely surprising without addressing the reason the earlier motion was granted. In this case, evidence concerning the identity of the scheduling contact needed a connection to the patient’s efforts to attend or reschedule. The opinion did not establish that connection.

Renewal also differs from reargument. CPLR 2221(d) addresses matters allegedly overlooked or misapprehended on the prior motion; it is not the provision for adding new facts. Those distinct procedures should not be collapsed into a general request for another chance. Their requirements must be assessed against the application actually being made. CPLR 2221(f) also permits the court, after granting leave to renew, to adhere to the original determination rather than change it.

Our Preferred Ortho note concerns a different procedural problem: an address objection raised for the first time on appeal. It is useful beside Brand because both decisions ask where and how an objection entered the record. They do not create a single rule that every omitted argument can be cured through renewal.

A pseudonym is not the same issue as an attendance witness

The disputed name was a contact for rescheduling. The decision does not say that “Lynn Carter” signed a false affidavit claiming to have witnessed the patient’s absence. Treating the case as proof of fabricated attendance testimony would change the facts.

For the evidence needed to establish a missed examination, compare Radiology Today. That case examines a scheduling company’s mailing practices and the professionals’ evidence of nonappearance. The source of knowledge matters because sending a letter and knowing who appeared are different events.

The Quality Psychological and Arco notes make the same distinction through other successful motion records. Neither requires readers to assume that every vendor employee personally watched the waiting room. The relevant question is what a particular witness can establish and how the record supports the assertion.

Later personal-knowledge decisions discussed in the IME hub also caution against relying on a witness’s title or a generic statement of familiarity. Brand did not remove those foundation questions. It resolved a renewal application about a rescheduling contact.

What to preserve when rescheduling is genuinely disputed

A person who tried to change an appointment may have information that was absent from the Brand record. Useful materials can include the notice, a dated email, a letter requesting another appointment, a call log or a response giving new instructions. Their relevance depends on what actually happened; this list is practical file guidance, not evidence the Brand court said it had.

Record the request accurately. A log showing that a call was placed is not necessarily proof of what was said, whether a message was received or whether a new date was agreed. Those are separate factual questions. Do not fill a gap with an assumption that reaching a general switchboard amounted to an accepted rescheduling request.

The Center for Orthopedic Surgery note addresses reasonableness and representation on a different no-show record. It helps distinguish an objection supported by competent proof from an assertion made only in argument. It does not establish that every inconvenient appointment is invalid.

For a provider reviewing assigned benefits, obtain the patient’s account and relevant documents rather than assuming that the contact name proves an excuse. For a patient, preserve the communication before recollection fades. Whether that material changes a defense or motion requires a review of the actual record.

Compare the new material with the earlier motion papers

Renewal requires a comparison, not merely a new exhibit. Identify what the earlier order decided, what evidence it relied on, and which proposition the new material would change. Then identify the source of the new information and explain why it was not supplied earlier. A transcript from another case may provide relevant information, but its existence alone does not establish what happened in this patient’s scheduling history.

For this type of dispute, that comparison also separates the sender’s instructions from the patient’s response. The notice can establish the named contact and stated method of requesting a new date. Evidence of a patient’s attempt addresses a different part of the sequence. Brand’s result should not be extended to a record containing communications that the reported court never had before it.

Jason’s original observation

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.

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

Jason’s comments above preserve his contemporary criticism and his account of an earlier trial. They are identified as comments, not findings made in this published appeal. The opinion establishes that the contact was a pseudonym on the transcript presented; it does not identify the vendor as MCMC or independently verify every detail of the earlier proceeding.

That distinction preserves the historical value of the note without converting recollection into a judicial holding. The archive is most useful when a reader can see both the attorney’s reaction at the time and the narrower point the court decided.

The related Longevity v Citiwide note follows the timing of IME and written-verification requests, while Solorzano separates a successful coverage showing from an unsuccessful default application. Both are reminders that a missed examination dispute may contain several independent issues. Identifying one unusual fact does not answer all of them.

A current review should identify the exact missed dates, the mailing evidence, any rescheduling attempt and the procedural stage of the dispute. This 2017 note is a useful caution about connecting new evidence to the result sought, not a substitute for reviewing today’s file.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

The IME no-show case directory connects notice, attendance, timing and procedural decisions:

• Radiology Today: who supplied the mailing and nonappearance evidence
• Center for Orthopedic Surgery: reasonableness and proof of representation
• Longevity v Citiwide: IMEs, written verification and denial timing
• Preferred Ortho: an address objection first raised on appeal
• Solorzano: summary judgment and default relief were different requests

For review of a particular no-fault claim or motion record, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. and read about our no-fault defense practice.