Key Takeaway
City Anesthesia upheld pre-claim IME scheduling. The NF-2 is an application for benefits, with duties distinct from the examination deadline.
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: City Anesthesia rejected a 30-day mailing deadline measured from NF-2 receipt; Gaines (2025, First Department) separately confirms the distinction between pre-claim IME notices and verification requests.
The NF-2 is the application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits. It is not a provider’s notice of treatment. City Anesthesia rejected a particular timing argument about that application: the provider said a pre-claim IME scheduling letter had to be mailed within 30 days after the carrier received the NF-2.
Jason’s original note
City Anesthesia Healthcare, P.C. v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 50135(U) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2021)
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.
“Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, defendant demonstrated that, before it had received the claim at issue, it properly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) of plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ). Defendant also demonstrated that it timely denied the claim (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ), based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for the IMEs. An assignor’s appearance at an IME “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722). Plaintiff’s contention that the pre-claim IME scheduling letter was required to be mailed within 30 days of defendant’s receipt of the NF-2 lacks merit (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 , ; Appendix 13).”
It is the bill, not the NF-2
Different documents start different duties
City Anesthesia v Erie was decided February 19, 2021. The Appellate Term reversed the denial of the insurer’s motion and granted dismissal. The insurer had proved proper scheduling before receipt of the claim, the missed examinations, and a timely denial. The citation year is 2021; the former 2020 parenthetical was incorrect.
The title is shorthand for that dispute, not a statement that the NF-2 has no legal effect. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(a), receipt of the application or equivalent written notice triggers a 10-business-day period to forward prescribed verification forms. Section 65-3.5(d) separately requires an examination sought as additional verification to be held within 30 calendar days after receipt of the prescribed verification forms.
That distinction also separates City Anesthesia from Total Chiropractic’s post-claim scheduling problem. In Gaines (2025), the First Department again distinguished pre-claim IME notices from verification requests and rejected a bill-by-bill approach to the coverage defense.
Label the document on the chronology: NF-2, prescribed verification form, or bill. Pre-claim scheduling still requires proof of a proper notice and the missed examination.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory.
- Total Chiropractic: late post-claim IME, neither side wins judgment
- Harmonic: the Unitrin coverage analysis
- Village Medical: verification and timely denial after missed IMEs
- Four 2011 insurer wins with timely-denial proof
- Sharp View: insufficient proof of mailing
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the scheduling letters, claim chronology and motion papers.
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 run amuck
Court ruling on IME no-shows highlights timing issues with claim denials in no-fault insurance cases, showing the complexity of procedural requirements.
Apr 2, 2014
The failure to specifically deny the lack of appearence at an IMEs proves fatal
Appeals court confirms that failing to specifically deny a patient's IME no-show in opposition papers proves fatal to a medical provider's no-fault insurance claim.
May 16, 2012
Poor No-Fault Opposition Papers Cannot Be Remedied on Appeal in NY
Preferred Ortho declined a new apartment-number objection on appeal. Read what was preserved, what the court did not decide, and the related IME address cases.
Mar 2, 2019
Tolling for an IME or EUO
PR Medical v Praetorian: a delay letter did not establish tolling. The provider won judgment; Jason's scheduling-letter explanation is distinguished.
Mar 25, 2016Was 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.
