Key Takeaway
Avalon Radiology required a new trial on denial timing after an EUO. The ruling did not finally decide benefits or create an unlimited verification toll.
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.
Avalon Radiology v Global Liberty required a new trial. The Appellate Term set aside the provider’s judgment on November 13, 2020 because the trial court had ruled the IME-based denials untimely without hearing the insurer’s proposed evidence about an EUO. The appeal did not finally decide who was owed benefits.
Historical note: Avalon (2020) required a trial on EUO-related denial timing; Chapa (2026) addresses a separate written-verification denial deadline, not an automatic withdrawal of claims.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
The witness never testified
Timeliness of the denials was the sole issue left for trial. The claims representative was prepared to testify about timely EUO requests and denials issued within 30 days after the EUO occurred. Instead, the trial judge counted from the missed IMEs and ruled for the provider without taking testimony.
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 Appellate Term granted relief under CPLR 4404(b) and sent the matter back for a new trial. Its reasoning relied in part on Alev’s earlier written-verification chronology. The insurer still had to present its proof at the new trial.
Keep written verification separate
Part 65 distinguishes verification types. The 120-day response and reasonable-justification provisions for applicable written requests expressly exclude NF-forms, medical-examination requests and EUO requests.
For written verification, Chapa (2026) rejected a supposed requirement to issue a denial within 150 days of the initial request. It did not declare unanswered claims automatically withdrawn. Neither that decision nor Avalon’s new-trial ruling supports an unlimited toll whenever an insurer asks for more information.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2021)
Avalon Radiology, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 51374(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
“As this court has held, where an insurer timely requests verification, its time to pay or deny a claim does not begin to run until it has received all of the requested verification, including the conducting of an EUO, and the insurer need not deny a claim while it is waiting for requested verification even if it already has a basis to deny such claim (see Parisien v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 64 Misc 3d 132, 2019 NY Slip Op 51050 ; Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 138, 2018 NY Slip Op 51584 ; Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 143, 2013 NY Slip Op 50258 ). As a result, the Civil Court’s holding that defendant was precluded from denying the claims based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs was erroneous. As no testimony was taken, the matter must be remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.”
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub.
- Alev Medical Supply: written verification and denial timing
- Beckles: the NF-3 and duly noticed examinations
- Success Rehab: the post-claim IME examination date
- Acupuncture Pain Management: proof of nonattendance
For review of a particular notice, claim file or motion, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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
Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Center for Orthopedic Surgery addressed reasonable IME requests and proof of representation. Mailing still matters; Jason's 2011 prediction is kept in context.
Mar 30, 2011
No show and non receipt
Progressive Health: mutual advance rescheduling was not an IME no-show. Separate mailing and nonreceipt affidavits left claim submission for trial.
May 11, 2017
An appeal is not a second chance to right what once went wrong.
Mind & Body Acupuncture v ELRAC: the court declined an apartment-number objection first raised on appeal and affirmed the insurer's judgment.
Aug 24, 2015
This one managed to get published
New York court case American Transit v. Megan Ash addresses Independent Medical Examination procedures in no-fault insurance claims and provider obligations.
Oct 1, 2013Was 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.
