Global Liberty Ins. Co. v New Century Acupuncture, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 03444 (1st Dept. 2018)
“Plaintiff sent an initial IME scheduling letter, and a re-scheduling letter, to both Davis and her attorney. After Davis failed to appear for the re-scheduled IME, plaintiff sent a third letter to the attorney, which indicated on its face that a copy had been sent to Davis. However, it is undisputed that the letter to Davis was sent to the wrong address. Thus, there was no reason for the attorney to know that Davis had not received notice of the re-scheduled IME and to tell her of the new IME date and location. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it provided adequate notice, reasonably calculated to apprise Davis that her appearance at an IME at a specified date and location was required”
2 Responses
What does this case mean?
Ponder the IME letter and EUO letter. Imagine the EIP has an attorney. Also, imagine that there is a cc: section of the letter mailed to the attorney. What needs to be in the cc: section? Name of EIP AND address of EIP. If both are there, then the attorney is on notice that the letter was mailed to the wrong address and the letter is properly mailed. If the cc: just has the name of the EIP sans address, then the mailing is insufficient.
It is not a bad rule and the prudent IME vendor and EUO vendor who always put the address of the EIP on the cc: of the letter will be rewarded through this case.