Michigan IME Rights: MCL 500.3151 Defense Medical Exams (2026)

By Attorney Manny Chahal · Updated May 2026 · Reading time: ~9 min · Educational overview — not legal advice

If a Michigan no-fault insurer asks you to attend an Independent Medical Examination, the request is not a suggestion. Under MCL 500.3151, your insurer has a statutory right to send you to a physician of its choosing whenever your physical or mental condition is material to a claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. The 2019 reforms tightened the qualifications an examining physician must hold, and Michigan courts have made clear that refusing to attend, without a court-recognized excuse, can lead to a suspension of benefits and other sanctions. This guide explains what an IME is, what the law actually requires, what your rights look like in 2026, and what claimants should know before the appointment.

What “IME” Actually Means in a Michigan No-Fault Claim

The term Independent Medical Examination is somewhat misleading. The examining physician is selected, scheduled, and paid by the insurer, and the report is prepared for the insurer’s claim file. Many Michigan practitioners prefer the term Defense Medical Examination (DME) for that reason. Whatever the label, the function is the same: the insurer wants its own physician to evaluate whether the claimant’s reported injuries, ongoing treatment, attendant care needs, work restrictions, and other PIP-driven losses are causally related to the motor vehicle accident and are still reasonably necessary.

The IME most often gets ordered when the insurer is considering whether to terminate or reduce benefits for allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), wage-loss benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(b), or replacement-services benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(c). It can also occur during third-party auto-tort litigation if the plaintiff’s medical condition is in issue under MCL 500.3135. The PIP IME is governed by MCL 500.3151; the tort-case IME is governed by the rules of discovery and MCR 2.311.

The Statutory Trigger: MCL 500.3151

MCL 500.3151 reads, in relevant part, that when the mental or physical condition of a person is material to a claim that has been or may be made for past or future personal protection insurance benefits, the person shall submit to a mental or physical examination by a physician at the insurer’s request. The duty is statutory, not contractual. The claimant cannot bargain it away in the policy, and the insurer does not need to file a lawsuit to invoke it.

The 2019 Examiner-Qualification Overlay

Effective June 11, 2019, 2019 PA 21 added a layered set of qualification requirements for IME physicians, codified at MCL 500.3151(2). The amendment is one of the most consequential changes from the broader no-fault reform package, because it limited the universe of physicians an insurer can use:

• Same-specialty rule. If a specialist is providing care to the claimant, the examining physician must specialize in the same specialty.
• Board-certification parity. If the treating specialist is board certified in that specialty, the IME physician must also be board certified in it.
• Active-practice requirement. During the year immediately preceding the examination, the examining physician must have devoted a majority of professional time to active clinical practice of medicine (or to teaching in an accredited medical school or residency or clinical-research program). If the same-specialty rule applies, the active practice must be in that specialty.
• Physician-only. The statute speaks of examination by a physician. Insurers cannot select a psychologist, chiropractor, or other non-physician practitioner to satisfy the IME duty.

The terms “specialty” and “board certified” are not defined inside MCL 500.3151. Commentators have suggested Michigan courts will most likely look to MCL 600.2169 — the expert-witness qualification statute used in medical-malpractice cases — for guidance.

What Happens If a Claimant Refuses

Refusal carries real consequences, but the consequences depend on whether litigation is pending and whether the refusal is willful or for cause.

Pre-Suit Refusal: Suspension of Benefits

In Roberts v Farmers Insurance Exchange, 275 Mich App 58 (2007), the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed that an insurer may suspend PIP benefits when a claimant repeatedly fails to submit to a properly noticed IME. The remedy is suspension, not permanent denial: once the claimant attends, the obligation to pay (and the insurer’s right to investigate) resumes. The COA was clear that allowing suspension protects the statutory bargain — otherwise a claimant could refuse with impunity and the insurer would have no way to verify the bona fides of an ongoing claim.

Litigation Refusal: Court Orders Under MCL 500.3153

Once a PIP lawsuit is on file, MCL 500.3153 arms the trial court with a meaningful sanctions menu for noncompliance with MCL 500.3151 or MCL 500.3152 (which governs the medical reports that follow). The orders the court may enter include:

• An order that the disobedient party’s physical or mental condition is taken as established in accord with the moving party’s contention.
• An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or barring evidence of physical or mental condition.
• An order rendering default judgment as to all or part of the disobedient party’s claim.
• An order requiring reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred defending the claim.

The statute also provides that a court cannot order the arrest of a person for refusing to submit to an IME. Sanctions are civil; they go to the merits of the claim and to fees, not to liberty.

Can a Court Place Conditions on the IME?

This is the question Muci v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 478 Mich 178; 732 NW2d 88 (2007), answered. In a 4-3 opinion by Chief Justice Taylor, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a trial court has no general power to attach conditions to a PIP IME under MCR 2.311. The PIP IME is governed by the No-Fault Act, and the only authority for limiting the examination is MCL 500.3159, which permits a protective order against an examination that would cause “annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression” — and only on a specific factual showing.

Translation: the negotiated conditions Michigan practitioners are accustomed to in tort-case discovery do not automatically carry over to a PIP IME. Conditions are still possible, but only through the narrow door MCL 500.3159 leaves open.

PIP IME vs. Tort-Case IME: How They Differ

Practical Checklist Before an IME

The following items are commonly addressed by Michigan claimant-side counsel before an IME. They are not legal advice; every case turns on its own facts.

• Verify the examiner’s qualifications. Confirm the physician’s board certification, specialty, and recent practice history before the appointment. If the claimant is treating with a board-certified neurologist, an IME by a physiatrist without that certification may be vulnerable to challenge under MCL 500.3151(2).
• Confirm reasonable time and place. MCL 500.3151 contemplates examinations at a reasonable time and place. Out-of-state travel, scheduling on weekends, or stacking multiple specialties in one day may be challenged on a particularized showing under MCL 500.3159.
• Document the history once, not over and over. The examiner will typically take a history. Claimants tend to fare better when the history matches the records already produced — not when it adds new symptoms or omits prior conditions.
• Be candid about prior injuries. Michigan no-fault does not bar recovery merely because a claimant had a prior injury. The aggravation rule still allows recovery for the accident-related worsening, provided the medical proofs support it.
• Request the report. Claimants are generally entitled to a copy of the IME report under MCL 500.3152. The report often becomes the basis for benefit suspension or termination; obtaining it early lets treating providers respond.
• Track the one-year-back rule. An IME-driven benefit cutoff does not pause the recoverable-loss window under MCL 500.3145. Filing deadlines keep running.

Frequently Asked Questions