Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C., v. Hereford Ins. Co., Slip Copy, 2016 WL 6106132 (Table), 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51479(U)
Defendant moved to dismiss the claim based upon the assignor’s failure to appear at the IME’s. The Court ruled that Defendant’s IME notices were not timely, saying:
Although defendant claims that the assignor failed to appear for two scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), defendant failed to show that the scheduling of the IMEs complied with the procedures and time frames set forth in Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(d); see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Vance, 131 AD3d 849 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity, 131 AD3d 841 ; Acupuncture, Approach, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 151[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50318[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2015]). In this regard, there is no indication in the record as to when defendant received plaintiff-provider’s no-fault claims and thus no basis to determine the timeliness of defendant’s IME requests. Although this issue was raised for the first time on appeal, it presents a question of law which this Court can review (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity, 131 AD3d at 841-842).