The language in the petition indicated a dispute was enough to justify the IME. The statute requires that there be a dispute before a party can obtain an IME.

The employer/carrier filed a motion to compel the claimant’s attendance at an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant contended there was no evidence of a dispute supporting the request for an IME. However, there was a pending petition that stated in part, “The claimant... has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.”

The claimant further argued that the employer/carrier was not entitled to an IME because the surgery at issue was due by operation of law because the employer/carrier did not timely respond to the request for authorization in accordance with 440.13(3)(i). The judge ruled that this argument goes to the merits of the case, which would not be adjudicated until the final hearing had taken place and after discovery was completed. Furthermore, the employer/carrier did not wave its right to contest the major contributing cause if it did not timely respond to a request for authorization. The petition also asked for payment of a medical bill for services provided prior to the recommendation of the surgery, so the surgery was not the only issue pending.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}