Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Understanding IME Medical Malpractice: Legal Standards and Physician Accountability
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a cornerstone of New York’s no-fault insurance system, designed to provide objective medical assessments for insurance claims. However, what happens when the examining physician’s conduct during an IME crosses the line into medical malpractice? A recent court decision provides important guidance on the legal standards that apply when IME doctors face malpractice claims.
The case of Goldson v Mann illustrates the challenges physicians face when defending against allegations that they departed from accepted medical practice during an IME. This decision highlights critical issues about evidence requirements and the burden of proof in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases involving IME procedures. Understanding these standards is essential for both medical professionals conducting IMEs and patients who may suffer injuries during these examinations.
While IME letters do not need to be sent to provider under certain circumstances, the conduct during the actual examination must still meet professional medical standards.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Goldson v Mann, 2019 NY Slip Op 04329 (1st Dept. 2019)
” Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in examining plaintiff during an independent medical examination (IME), or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury to her left shoulder (see Scalisi v Oberlander, 96 AD3d 106, 120 ). Defendant’s expert affirmation, which relied on defendant’s testimony regarding his custom and practice of examining patients during his IMEs, was insufficient. Defendant’s testimony did not establish a deliberate and repetitive practice sufficient to show evidence of his behavior during plaintiff’s examination, as he testified that his examination varied depending on the examinee”
Key Takeaway
This ruling establishes that IME physicians cannot simply rely on general testimony about their usual practices to defend against malpractice claims. Instead, they must provide specific evidence of deliberate and consistent examination procedures. The court’s decision emphasizes that varying examination methods based on individual patients undermines a physician’s ability to prove they followed standard medical practices during a specific IME.
Related Articles
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
IME no-show not sustained
Court rules IME no-show defense fails when insurer didn't schedule exam within required 30-day timeframe under NY regulations 11 NYCRR 65-3.5.
Feb 27, 2018
Maya failed to prove mailing of the IME scheduling letters
Sharp View denied Maya's summary judgment motion for insufficient mailing proof. The ruling did not award benefits or require certified mail.
Nov 28, 2015
IME no-show upheld based upon DJ case law **correction**
Court upholds IME no-show defense using declaratory judgment case law precedent in New York no-fault insurance litigation, demonstrating retroactive claim denial rights.
Feb 28, 2014
A court in Nassau has applied Unitrin through a front door and back door channel
Analysis of Nassau County court applying Unitrin v. Bayshore in American Transit v. Mayo IME no-show case. Expert legal analysis of front/back door channels.
Feb 11, 2012Was 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.
