Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases

Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases

An IME no-show defense turns on proof: a properly scheduled examination, notice, and evidence that the injured person did not attend. The three October 2019 decisions below show that proof succeeding; a fourth decision, Satya Drug, shows where it failed.

These are historical case notes about assigned no-fault benefits. The published opinions in Valdan, Tyorkin and Lidas identify Jason Tenenbaum as counsel for Global Liberty. They should be read with the later authorities below, not as a single checklist that applies unchanged in every court.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Historical note: This October 2019 note concerns the proof and motion records in four identified appeals; Nationwide General Insurance Co. v Gaines, 2025 NY Slip Op 01896, supplies a later First Department example distinguishing pre-claim IME notices from post-claim verification and treating a properly established no-show as a coverage defense.

What the October 2019 decisions actually decided

Valdan: the insurer won the challenged claim, but discovery remained

In Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. v Global Liberty Insurance Co. of NY, 2019 NY Slip Op 51705(U), the Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to grant the insurer summary judgment on the claim at issue in the appeal.

Global Liberty established timely mailing of the initial and follow-up IME letters, nonappearance on both dates, and a timely denial on that ground. The provider did not raise a triable issue.

There was a separate discovery ruling. The insurer failed to establish a basis to disturb the order compelling discovery, which remained in place. Describing the appeal as an unqualified dismissal of the entire case would miss that distinction.

Tyorkin: mailing proof from the scheduling company

In Tyorkin v Global Liberty Insurance, 2019 NY Slip Op 51689(U), the Appellate Term reversed the denial of the insurer’s cross motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A supervisor at Omnimed Evaluation Services supplied the affidavit establishing timely mailing of the scheduling letters. The insurer also established nonappearance and timely denial. The provider failed to raise a triable issue in opposition.

The decision accepted the proof submitted in that record. It does not mean that any statement from a scheduling vendor establishes everything the insurer needs to prove.

Lidas: compare the address with the claimant’s own forms

In Lidas Medical Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Insurance, 2019 NY Slip Op 51688(U), the disputed address lacked an apartment number. It nevertheless matched the address in the assignor’s sworn NF-2 application and sworn notice of intention to make claim.

The Appellate Term found that address proper on this record and granted the insurer summary judgment. The provider had not challenged the lower court’s finding that the insurer was otherwise entitled to judgment.

That narrow posture matters. The opinion did not decide what happens when an insurer has been given a different, corrected address.

Satya Drug: the no-show proof failed

Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Insurance Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U), was decided by the Appellate Term, First Department, on September 20, 2019. It affirmed the denial of the insurer’s summary-judgment motion.

The IME doctor’s affirmation did not adequately explain the basis for recalling the claimant’s absence about sixteen months later. The vendor’s affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of the nonappearance either.

A later signature was part of the problem the court examined, not an automatic expiration date for every affidavit. The useful question is how this witness knows the claimant was absent. Jason’s 2021 note on personal knowledge and business records addresses that distinction.

Read the appointment file before drawing a conclusion

Start with the documents that establish the sequence:

• The NF-2 application, the bills or verification forms, and the insurer’s receipt dates.
• Both appointment notices, the addresses used, and evidence of mailing.
• Any request to reschedule or notice of an address change.
• The examiner’s account of attendance and any records on which the witness relies.
• The denial and the motion papers, including any findings the lower court already made.

Mailing a notice and proving nonappearance are separate evidentiary questions. A statement that a letter was sent does not, by itself, establish what happened at the examination office.

Also distinguish failure to attend from a dispute over an examination’s medical findings. This note concerns the no-show defense. It does not decide whether a particular course of treatment was medically necessary.

Latest developments

In Nationwide General Insurance Co. v Gaines, 237 AD3d 411 (1st Dept 2025), the First Department granted the insurers a declaration of no coverage after two properly noticed IMEs were missed. The notices preceded receipt of the claims, so the court held that the post-claim verification notification requirements did not apply. It also held that the insurers did not have to establish a timely disclaimer. This later application is why the timely-denial evidence in the 2019 cases should not be presented as a universal rule.

The archive’s February 2026 discussion of an attorney’s EUO affirmation covers GC Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm, 2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U). On renewal, that court accepted an affirmation executed roughly three years after the alleged no-shows. It is a useful comparison about the proof of absence, but it concerns an examination under oath, not an IME, and does not erase Satya Drug’s analysis of the evidence before that court.

Frequently asked questions

Does missing an IME automatically end the dispute?

The insurer still has to establish the defense with admissible proof. Tyorkin shows a successful motion; Satya Drug shows an unsuccessful one. A missed appointment is serious, but the outcome depends on the demand, the evidence and the applicable authority.

Is every IME request subject to the same thirty-day clock?

No. Gaines distinguishes notices sent before the insurer receives claims from requests made as post-claim verification. Identify the document received and the stage of the claim before calculating a deadline.

What if the scheduling letter has an incomplete address?

Compare it with the claim documents and any correction sent to the insurer. Lidas accepted an address matching the claimant’s own sworn forms. It does not resolve every address dispute.

What should I save if I could not attend?

Keep the notices, correspondence requesting a new date, and documents explaining the conflict. Contact counsel promptly about the demand and the missed appointment. This page cannot establish whether an excuse is sufficient in a particular claim.

Is arbitration only for patients, with providers limited to lawsuits?

No. Insurance Law § 5106(b) provides a claimant an arbitration option; the assigned-benefit dispute should not be described as a categorical patient/provider split. Counsel can assess the available forum and the consequences of choosing it.

Cases in this topic

The directory below links the historical IME notes by the issue they discuss. Dates are publication dates, newest first within each group. The 2019 overview is this page; the later authorities are discussed above.

Claim receipt and examination scheduling

• Unitrin v Beckles: receipt of the NF-3 — 2021-03-22
• City Anesthesia: a pre-claim IME and the NF-2 — 2021-03-17
• Total Chiropractic: post-claim IME scheduling — 2021-03-17
• Success Rehab: the scheduled examination date — 2020-02-01
• Tesi: the first examination outside the claimed scheduling window — 2018-02-27
• Irina Acupuncture: scheduling after receipt of the bills — 2017-11-04
• Acupuncture Solutions: what the record says about timely mailing — 2015-03-26

Addresses, recipients and appointment requests

• Colin: conflicting ZIP codes in the claim documents — 2020-09-25
• Brand Medical: matching the notice address — 2019-08-04
• Renelique: conflicting addresses and notice to counsel — 2018-06-03
• Brand v ELRAC: the named rescheduling contact — 2017-12-26
• Alleviation v New York Central: identifying the claimant’s attorney — 2017-07-31
• Parisien: objections to the requested appointment time — 2017-06-10
• Progressive Health: mutual rescheduling before the appointment — 2017-05-11
• Prime Diagnostic: an apartment number and an appellate objection — 2016-10-27
• Stracar v Allstate: repeat IMEs in different specialties — 2016-10-13
• Bay LS Medical: a misspelled name on the IME letters — 2015-05-28
• Pugsley: notice to the medical provider — 2015-05-27
• AP Orthopedic: the cancellation wording in IME letters — 2014-12-26
• Great Health Care: street names and counsel’s representation — 2014-04-02
• American Transit v Leon: notice to the assignor’s attorney — 2013-12-05
• Ranbow Supply: the insured’s address and counsel’s copy — 2013-10-27
• Infinity Health: conflicting ZIP codes and counsel — 2013-05-16
• Multi-Specialty: notice to the assignor and counsel — 2011-09-15
• All County: distinguishing the IME and EUO request standards — 2011-04-16
• Jason’s note on reasonableness and notice to counsel — 2011-03-30
• Central Radiology: vendor confirmations versus notices to the claimant — 2010-05-23

Mailing procedures and receipt of notices

• Harvard, Liberty and Sharp View: three Maya appeals — 2016-10-27
• Sharp View v Maya: the mailing-practice affidavit — 2015-11-28
• Alleviation v Maya: proof of timely mailing — 2015-08-24
• Faith Acupuncture: proof of the mailing procedure — 2015-01-03
• By MD: rebutting presumed receipt of IME notices — 2014-08-20
• Acupuncture Approach: the vendor’s mailing procedures — 2013-10-20
• City Care: a denial of receipt standing alone — 2013-04-01

Personal knowledge, records and nonappearance

• Psychology After Accident: personal knowledge and business records — 2021-11-22
• Utica Acupuncture: recollection two years later — 2017-03-25
• Healthy Way v Clarendon: recollection eight years later — 2016-09-29
• MB Advanced: conflicting accounts of the doctor’s location — 2016-06-10
• Sutphin Complete: foundation for recalling nonappearance — 2016-05-20
• Alleviation v Hertz: personal knowledge or other appropriate proof — 2016-03-30
• Compas v New York Central: conclusory affidavits — 2016-03-29
• Village v Travelers: recollection twelve months later — 2016-03-25
• Metro 8 v ELRAC: recollection without attendance records — 2016-02-20
• Acupuncture Pain Management: personal knowledge and office practice — 2015-10-30
• S.A. Medical: evidence of office practices — 2015-07-21
• Delta Diagnostic: sworn statements without a foundation — 2015-07-21
• S.A. Medical: Jason’s separate note on the affidavits — 2015-06-28
• T & J Chiropractic: the basis of the professionals’ knowledge — 2015-05-27
• Priority Medical: the scheduler and examining professionals — 2015-04-17
• Quality Psychological and Arco: the three supporting affidavits — 2014-08-20
• Sunrise Acupuncture: office procedures and personal knowledge — 2014-07-22
• Jacoby Chiropractic: the remaining nonappearance issue — 2013-12-08
• American Transit v Casas Sosa: objections to the affidavits — 2013-08-02
• Right Aid: the examining professionals’ statements — 2013-07-07
• Quality v Travelers: the SIGNET hearsay issue — 2013-05-16
• VE Medical: the mailing, attendance and denial record — 2012-06-18
• East 75th Street: three parts of the motion record — 2012-04-08
• All Borough Group: proof of the scheduled IME no-show — 2011-05-31
• Excel Radiology: missing mailing and attendance proof — 2011-05-02
• Tri-Mount: vendor and examining-professional affidavits — 2011-03-15
• Trimed: the examining doctor’s office address — 2010-12-01
• Radiology Today: sworn proof of nonappearance — 2009-11-05

Denial timing, verification and preserved grounds

• Avalon Radiology: outstanding verification and IME denial — 2021-03-17
• Valdan v New York Central: the grounds stated in each denial — 2018-06-03
• Longevity v Citiwide: pre-claim IMEs and later verification — 2017-12-26
• IME scheduling, written verification and the eventual denial — 2016-09-29
• PR Medical: a delay letter and proof of tolling — 2016-03-25
• Compas: the untimely third claim denial — 2015-11-28
• Village v New York Central: verification and denial timing — 2014-04-19
• Clinton Place: timeliness of the denial — 2014-04-02
• Clinton Place: claims without proof of timely denial — 2014-03-25
• Alev Medical: verification received after the IME no-shows — 2013-02-24
• Brooklyn Heights: duplicate denial forms — 2013-01-10
• BR Clinton: the affidavit omitted one claim — 2012-05-16
• Four 2011 notes on timely IME denials — 2011-10-19
• Vincent Medical: proof of a timely denial — 2011-09-26

Coverage decisions and the Unitrin debate

• American Transit v Acosta: the majority and concurrence — 2022-02-18
• Kamara Supplies: the IME defense and policy-issue fees — 2021-05-22
• Healthy Way v Allstate: the Unitrin coverage defense — 2014-06-04
• Stracar: declaratory-judgment precedents in a provider action — 2014-02-28
• American Transit v Lucas: attendance as a coverage condition — 2013-11-07
• MDJ v New York Central: retroactive denial under Unitrin — 2013-11-03
• American Transit v Ash: the IME coverage declaration — 2013-10-01
• American Transit v Solorzano: the coverage declaration — 2013-07-09
• New York Methodist: the Nassau County Unitrin discussion — 2012-06-27
• American Transit v Mayo: Unitrin in Nassau County — 2012-02-11
• Harmonic v Praetorian: an early Unitrin application — 2011-08-25
• Alrof v Nationwide: Westchester and Unitrin citations — 2011-08-05
• Chiropractic Back Care: a Nassau District Court coverage ruling — 2011-04-13
• Neomy Medical: the coverage-versus-exclusion debate — 2011-04-13
• Apollo Chiropractic: the mandatory endorsement and the motion record — 2010-05-24

Opposition papers, appeals and trial proof

• Medcare v Global Liberty: counsel’s excuse for nonattendance — 2020-02-21
• Valdan v 21st Century: answering an address objection in reply — 2019-06-02
• Preferred Ortho: preserving an address objection — 2019-03-02
• Progressive Orthopedics: presenting the defense at trial — 2017-06-10
• Mind & Body: an address objection first raised on appeal — 2015-08-24
• Eagle Surgical: proving the no-show at trial — 2013-08-06
• Coast Medical: responding to the no-show motion — 2013-03-21
• Continental: the response to IME nonappearance evidence — 2012-05-16
• Marina: opposing the mailing and attendance record — 2010-07-30

Notes comparing IME and EUO proof

• Urban Well and Metro 8: IME and EUO affidavits — 2016-06-20
• Compas, Alleviation and Village: no-show proof disputes — 2015-11-17
• Compas v Praetorian: verification, IMEs and EUOs — 2015-10-06
• Great Health Care: IME mailing and EUO proof — 2014-12-23
• MDJ v Praetorian: IME and EUO proof — 2014-06-09
• Dowd: missed IMEs and EUOs — 2012-06-27

Historical comparison outside New York

This Florida note is included for historical comparison, not as New York authority.

• Florida comparison: Comprehensive Health Center — 2011-07-11

Connect to the Encyclopedia

• Legal Encyclopedia: no-fault and civil-procedure topics
• Mailing and proof of service in IME disputes
• Personal knowledge versus business records in proving an IME no-show
• The 2014 MDJ note on IME and EUO nonappearance
• The Pugsley note on notice to the medical provider
• The companion EUO requirements hub
• The later EUO time-lapse decision discussed in February 2026

Discuss a no-fault denial

Bring the appointment notices, denial and claim correspondence so the disputed proof can be identified. Call (516) 750-0595 for a Free Consultation, or request a Free Case Review.