Key Takeaway
Valdan Acupuncture: one claim dismissed, three remitted for other defenses. Compare its IME ruling with First Department coverage cases.
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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Valdan’s 2018 result belongs to the Second Department Appellate Term; Gaines (First Department, 2025) expressly rejects a bill-by-bill approach to the properly proven IME coverage defense.
Valdan Acupuncture v New York Central Mutual did not award payment on the three claims whose denials omitted IME nonattendance. On May 18, 2018, the Appellate Term, Second Department remitted those claims for consideration of other defenses and granted the insurer judgment on a fourth claim.
One dismissal and three claims sent back
For three bills, the carrier had denied on grounds other than the IME no-shows. The court applied Westchester Medical Center v Lincoln General and rejected summary judgment on the unpreserved IME ground. The remaining grounds in the motion still needed a determination. For the fourth bill, the insurer established mailing and nonattendance, and the provider did not challenge its entitlement to judgment on the other required points.
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.
The result needs its jurisdiction attached. Unitrin (2011) took a different First Department approach. In Gaines (2025), that court expressly treated a properly proven IME no-show as a coverage defense that was not determined bill by bill and did not require proof of timely disclaimer. Valdan’s claim-by-claim result is a historical Second Department Appellate Term ruling, not a statewide instruction to disregard contrary First Department authority.
Jason’s original note
Jason’s original reaction to the ruling and acknowledgment of counsel follow. The opinion identifies counsel on the brief; the later career-move comment remains an unverified historical aside.
Oh its’s real.
Shout out to former no-fault attorney Irena Golodkeyer on her brief. Rumor tells me that she has found greener pastures in the world.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- Marina: mailing and nonattendance proof that supported dismissal
- PR Medical: a delay letter that did not establish tolling
- Mind & Body: the address objection first raised on appeal
- MB Advanced: conflicting affidavits about the examination location
- T & J: sworn statements without demonstrated personal knowledge
For review of a particular claim, our no-fault defense practice can assess the notices, denials and motion papers. Contact the office to discuss the file. For broader background, see New York no-fault insurance law.
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
Another IME no show from the App. Term First Dept
Appeals court confirms insurance companies can retroactively deny all no-fault claims when patients fail to appear for required IMEs, regardless of timing.
Nov 3, 2013
Leave denied
Court denies leave in Unitrin v Bayshore Physical Therapy case, highlighting challenges healthcare providers face under current no-fault insurance regulations.
Jun 28, 2011
IME no-show – it was not mailed
Court finds insufficient proof of IME mailing in no-fault case, highlighting importance of proper documentation when claiming patient no-show for scheduled examinations.
Sep 21, 2017
Personal knowledge and other appropriate means
Acupuncture Pain Management v Kemper: personal knowledge, office practices and proof of missed IMEs, with a separate Compas EUO comparison.
Oct 30, 2015Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What is the Unitrin/Westchester split in New York no-fault law?
The post contrasts First Department coverage decisions with Valdan's Second Department Appellate Term treatment of denials that omitted the IME ground. Gaines in 2025 expressly treated the properly proven IME coverage defense as not bill by bill in the First Department. Valdan should not be presented as a uniform statewide rule.
Can an insurer deny all of a provider's claims after an IME no-show?
The answer depends on the governing authority and the proof. In Valdan, three claims could not be dismissed on the unpreserved IME ground, but other defenses were sent back for a ruling. The insurer won dismissal of a fourth claim. Gaines applies a different First Department coverage analysis.
What should a provider check when opposing an IME no-show motion?
Compare each bill, denial ground and supporting record, then identify the governing appellate authority. Valdan left other defenses unresolved on three claims. An omitted IME ground there did not by itself establish that the provider was entitled to payment.
Was 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.
