IME scheduling letters
According to the no-fault insurance regulations, a letter scheduling
an IME for a claimant must (among other requirements) inform him that
he will be reimbursed for time lost from work and traveling expenses.
Question: In an IME no-show defense, it is a "fatal defect" if a
letter rescheduling an IME (after the claimant did not show for the
first scheduled IME) did not contain such reimbursement language when
the first letter already informed he that he was entitled to
reimbursement for expenses?
Is there any way that the IME no-show/policy violation/Fogel defense
could be preserved despite the failure to include the notice language
in the second letter?
Larry Rogak responds:
Generally, the trend is that the courts have been holding that the second IME scheduling letter, or any second verification request, must contain the exact same language as the first letter except for adding the words "second request." There may be some instances where the insurer can get away with a defect in the second letter but astute plaintiffs' attorneys will jump on this. The bottom line is this: make sure your follow up letters are identical to the first, but in cases where you already have such a defective second letter, test the water and see if plaintiff's attorney fails to bring it up.