Key Takeaway
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
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.
Unitrin Direct v Beckles identifies an NF-3 claim and two missed, duly noticed IMEs as the basis for a no-fault coverage ruling. On November 24, 2020, the First Department reversed the denial of summary judgment and declared that the insurer had no coverage obligation for the benefits sought by the respondents.
Historical note: Beckles rests on a post-claim NF-3 record; Gaines (2025, First Department) confirms the distinct treatment of pre-claim notices and a coverage defense that is not decided bill by bill.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
What the insurer proved
The record included a medical provider’s NF-3 claim, a timely request for an IME and two duly noticed examinations that the injured claimant did not attend. The court described the resulting coverage defense as extending to further coverage obligations and outstanding bills from treating providers. The actual declaration on appeal concerned the respondents.
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 opinion does not specify a universal affidavit checklist, require certified mail, or prescribe a stenographic record of an empty examination. For a decision that addresses the witnesses’ knowledge, see Acupuncture Pain Management’s no-show affidavits.
Request time and examination time are different
The original quotation uses “15 days.” Section 65-3.5(b) specifies 15 business days for additional-verification requests after receipt of prescribed forms; subdivision (d) separately requires an examination requested as additional verification to be scheduled to be held within 30 calendar days. Success Rehab addresses that examination-date issue.
The NF-3 matters to Beckles’s post-claim record. It should not be read as the only possible route to an IME defense: Gaines (2025) distinguishes pre-claim notices and confirms that a proven coverage defense is not decided bill by bill.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2021)
Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v Beckles, 2020 NY Slip Op 06974 (1st Dept. 2020)
“Where, as here, the insurer submits evidence of a medical provider claim (NF-3), the timely request for an independent medical examination (IME) of the injured claimant within 15 days of the receipt of that claim, and the injured claimant is a no-show at two duly noticed IMEs, the basis for disclaimer of coverage is established, as a matter of law, and summary judgment is properly awarded to the insurer with respect to further coverage obligations and reimbursement of outstanding medical bills with respect to all treating providers (see Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., 147 AD3d 437 ; National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v Tam Med. Supply Corp., 131 AD3d 851 ). “
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub.
- Success Rehab: the post-claim IME examination date
- Acupuncture Pain Management: proof of nonattendance
- By MD: mailing proof and the presumption of receipt
- Valdan: reply evidence and the address known at mailing
- Alev Medical Supply: written verification and denial timing
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
It is the bill, not the NF-2
City Anesthesia upheld pre-claim IME scheduling. The NF-2 is an application for benefits, with duties distinct from the examination deadline.
Mar 17, 2021
Unsure
Alleviation v Maya: the insurer's motion failed because timely IME-letter mailing was not established. The 2015 appeal did not award the provider benefits.
Aug 24, 2015
Medical provider cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense through stating “discovery is outstanding”
Medical providers cannot defeat IME non-cooperation defense by claiming outstanding discovery. NY appellate court rules on summary judgment standards.
Sep 2, 2013
District Nassau justifies IME no-show coverage defnese based upon Stephen Fogel
Nassau District Court upholds IME no-show coverage defense using Stephen Fogel precedent, ruling condition precedent defenses never waive in no-fault cases.
Apr 13, 2011
IME no-show/ failure to object during claims stage is fatal to later objection
Parisien rejected a late reasonableness objection where no response to IME requests was alleged. It does not cure defective notice or authorize skipping exams.
Jun 10, 2017Was 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.
