Skip to main content
This one takes the cake
EUO issues

This one takes the cake

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum criticizes a 2010 Nassau District Court decision in Dynamic Medical Imaging v State Farm, calling it legally flawed and against established precedent.

This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo 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.

No-fault insurance disputes often involve complex procedural requirements, particularly regarding Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) and the standards insurance companies must meet when requesting them. The 2010 Nassau District Court decision in Dynamic Medical Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. represents what some practitioners view as a significant departure from established legal precedent in this area.

EUO procedures are governed by strict requirements under New York No-Fault Insurance Law, and courts have generally developed consistent approaches to handling disputes over these examinations. When practitioners encounter decisions that seem to deviate substantially from established patterns, it often signals potential issues with either the legal analysis or factual findings.

The tension between insurance company rights to investigate claims and healthcare provider rights to timely payment creates a complex legal landscape. This is particularly relevant in cases involving EUO objections and procedural requirements, where courts must balance competing interests while adhering to established precedent.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Dynamic Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20285 (Dis. Nassau 2010)

I am somewhat flabbergasted at this decision. I am pretty down the middle (I think) and I really try to be as fair as I can on this blog. With that introduction, I will say the following. I would probably volunteer to do the appeal on this one, just because it is off on the law, the facts and is against the trend of every modern case that has come out of both branches of the Appellate Term, Second Department, as well as some “hidden” Appellate Division precedent, which I will not disclose. You can read the facts of this case at your leisure.

Key Takeaway

This Nassau District Court decision appears to contradict established legal precedent regarding EUO procedures and no-fault insurance requirements. The decision’s departure from consistent appellate-level rulings suggests potential grounds for successful appeal, highlighting the importance of understanding how EUO compliance issues should be properly analyzed under current law.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 analysis of EUO procedural requirements, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple revisions, including updates to examination procedures, notice requirements, and standards for insurance company investigations. Practitioners should verify current EUO provisions under the Insurance Law and applicable Department of Financial Services regulations, as both substantive requirements and procedural standards may have evolved significantly.

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.

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO) in no-fault insurance?

An EUO is a sworn, recorded interview conducted by the insurance company's attorney to investigate a no-fault claim. The insurer schedules the EUO and asks detailed questions about the accident, injuries, treatment, and the claimant's background. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), appearing for the EUO is a condition precedent to receiving no-fault benefits — failure to appear can result in claim denial.

What happens if I miss my EUO appointment?

Missing an EUO (known as an EUO 'no-show') can result in denial of your no-fault benefits. However, insurers must follow strict procedural requirements: they must send two scheduling letters by certified and regular mail, provide adequate notice, and submit a timely denial based on the no-show. If the insurer fails to comply with these requirements, the denial can be overturned at arbitration or in court.

What questions will be asked at a no-fault EUO?

EUO questions typically cover your personal background, employment history, the circumstances of the accident, your injuries and symptoms, treatment received, prior accidents or injuries, and insurance history. The insurer's attorney may also ask about your daily activities and financial arrangements with medical providers. You have the right to have your attorney present, and your attorney can object to improper questions.

Can an insurance company require multiple EUOs for the same claim?

Yes, under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), an insurer may request additional EUOs as reasonably necessary to investigate a claim. However, repeated EUO requests may be challenged as harassing or unreasonable. Courts have found that insurers cannot use EUOs as a tool to delay claims indefinitely. Each EUO request must be properly noticed with adequate time for the claimant to appear.

Do I have the right to an attorney at my EUO?

Yes. You have the right to have an attorney represent you at an EUO, and it is strongly recommended. Your attorney can prepare you for the types of questions asked, object to improper or overly broad questions, and ensure the insurer follows proper procedures. Having experienced no-fault counsel at your EUO can help protect your claim from being unfairly denied.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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 euo 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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (19)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

RZ
Raymond Zuppa
I would love to see the hidden Appellate Division precedent. It must really be hidden. You should look to Mallela and the Court of Appeals for this one. Re: looking beyond the face of licensing documents — You cannot abuse the regulations. You must demonstrate behavior tantamount [sp?] to fraud. You should not be allowed to receive a bill and then demand an EUO. It is about time someone said give me a break. J.T. they are an insurance company. Not the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the Dept of Homeland Security. If you wanted to work for one of the above you should have applied. You still can.
J
JT Author
The law says if you think it is oppressive, object. You cannot just not show-up. As to your comment regarding the US Attorney’s office, what happens when you do not show up to your arraignment after a true bill has been voted out, despite your objections to the said indictment? I think it is called a bench warrant.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
The rule is prompt payment. Stupid demands are a nullity that need not be responded to. They are a bogus waste of time. A response will begat another demand — round and round it goes. Arguments and threats. I have done it and it is well publicized and up on appeal in a case where my pleading is quite good. How does a medical provider function if it has to respond to hundreds of bogus demands made to delay and wear down. Mind you after reading the about the latest bust in the medicare scam and seeing some familiar names I am even more disgusted then ever. Insurance company omnipotence is not the answer. I have several friends and a close relative as well as a client that were in very real accidents with real injuries who treated at doctors that have been in their families for years — bogus denials. Thanks for making my point J.T. Again if you want to be responsible for having Bench Warrants issued you need to apply to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. You are a bright kid. They’ll take you — except you may be too bright for them.
J
JT Author
I like the kid comment. I find that when I leave the office, get some sun, and bike ride 30+ miles, I look 5-10 years younger. I would say that many medical providers do “respond” to these document requests, in that they voice specific objections from their counsel in writing as to the validity of the document demands, prior to the scheduled EUO. In my practice, I can tell you that when I receive the “why are you demanding an EUO and assorted documents” letter from a provider or their counsel, I send a correspondence back, stating why I am requesting these documents and their EUO. If the medical provider still does not want to be deposed, then so be it. But, that is how the above situation should be handled. It is a no brainer. It is improper to do nothing, and it is even more improper for a court to sanction the behavior of a provider that does nothing.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
First in my experience — and it is well documented — a response saying what is your basis for asking for this documentation that is worthy of a federal money laundering probe is always the same. A tough guy wannabe who couldn’t try his way out of a paper bag tells you that according to the Dept of Insurance a basis for the demand need not be enunciated in the letter. On and on it goes. Let’s not mince words Jason. The Ct of Appeals says you cannot ask for this stuff without a demonstration of fraud. The letters are meant to cause a non-response and a denial. As such they are unlawful and need not be responded to. I know of particular lawyer at a particular firm who told a provider that had a habit of showing up to these things: “We don’t expect people to respond.” This conversation will be reduced to Affidavit form in an upcoming legal action so stay tuned. You would have a medical provider have a full time legal staff just to argue with tough guy no fault defense attorneys. And the nasty letters they send — from the White Shoe No Fault Defense Firms. As I always say my father with two years of school became a millionaire before he was 40 so a law degree does not impress me. The letters are improper and unlawful. As such a response is unwarranted. Let’s not mince words Jason. I am going to be trying some real cases against some of these folks and I tell you this. I am going to pick a jury and then proceed to tear their still beating hearts out and feed it to them bit by bit. People can talk all they want but I have a habit of at least attempting what I say. And in this sphere — trials — I always deliver what I say I will deliver. Hah. What do you have: A bunch of bum rushing miscreants that never faced anything but an equally miscreantish no fault plaintiff’s bar.
J
JT Author
Dave – I accidentally marked your comment as spam. I get about 10-100 spams a day. Anyway, you asked about whether or not the insurance carriers’ asking for unicorns would be deemed a valid request. I would only say that you should tell the carrier that unicorns do not exist. But that is it – YOU MUST TELL THEM.
DM
David M. Gottlieb
It’s ok. Sometimes I accidentally make spam comments.
J
JT Author
Funny Dave. Anyway, I am going to start asking for unicorns now.
DM
David M. Gottlieb
I wish you would. I’d like to know just how far the Appellate Term will let insurers go with this.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Here I go and say a bunch of incendiary stupid things to boost your low summer ratings and you take this and start talking about unicorns. D.G. where is my incendiary comment on the Acupuncture Fee Schedule. Zuppa may bring flys but he also brings ratings. I am the Kimbo Slice of law.
S
SunTzu
Find me regarding plaintiff’s brief at NFP.
J
JT Author
You are alive. You were MIA for about 2 weeks.
JA
Joe Armao
I would just like to say “you’re welcome” for this decision. Although, State Farm is appealing me, so I may have to withdraw that at some point.
J
JT Author
I knew you were behind that decision. I really respect Judge Hirsch, and enjoy appearing before him. I disagree with some of the things he writes, but he was off on this one. If the Appellate Division is going to punish carriers by not allowing discovery during arbitration because the carrier should have used the EUO devices, yet the courts are saying that the EUO device may not be used because it is being used as a pre-litigation tool, then where does this leave us? I think that is why I have issues with this case. You can’t have it both ways. Oh, and that is the crux of my appeal if I were writing it. Please send me a check for $500.00 – that is my minimum fee.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Oh J.T. you are so wrong on this. Read the regs. An EUO is not an automatic right. It must be reasonably requested. It is an exception to prompt payment. You have to have a good valid reason. See the Mallela case. The vaunted Mallela case. The second coming Mallela case. Also the anti-trust style document demands were the pre action discovery that the judge was referring to. Not the EUO. Obviously the demands are gauged to produce a non response so that the insurance company can have a justification for non-payment. See Id. Stop with this “brave new world of lawyering” which is misrepresenting your opponent’s argument and then arguing against the misrepresentation with much aplomb and bravado. J.T. if you try that when we have our Supreme Court or Federal Court jury trial I am going to rip your heart out and feed it to you — the jury may not get it at first but when you show them … oh they’ll hate you about as much as southerners hated carpet baggers — Mr. Insurance Company man. Mr. taxpayer bail out man. Here’s a snippet of Brave New World Lawyering that actually occurred between myself and an unidentified brave new world lawyer before an Appellate Court. [Spoken like Carrie’s Mother] “Yerrr honorrr I argued Hospital fer Joint diseases … I know what that case is about betterrr then that there Mr. Zuppa.” Zuppa: Wait a minute … you lost that case. [Carrie’s Mom with the law degree] Yer honorrrr I’m gonna ask that Mr Zuppa stop insultin’ me and ma clients. Court: Ad hominen and invective. $10 costs. You lose because your client is a fraud running a ponzi scheme.
J
JT Author
You seem to crave this knock down, drag out jury trial in some Supreme Court or Federal Court with me. I am not sure how I became one of the targets of your affliction, but I will be more than happy to oblige you if that is what you want. As for your desire to tear my heart out, feed it to me and do other sordid things to me, I am not sure how those actions will endear yourself to a jury. Lastly, in the Appellate Division, you would get socked with $200 in costs for your behavior. Be glad costs are limited by statute to $30 at the Appellate Term. And I should also let you know that the Appellate Term cannot hate you that much if they only hit you with $10 costs, as opposed to the full $30.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
And Judge Hirsch really wants your respect J.T. He craves it. He wants you to write more about him. So does Judge Engel. They all curry favor with you in the hopes that it will elevate them to the Appellate Term 2nd — the Court that J.T. built.
J
JT Author
Judge Hirsch is a very well thought out and articulate jurist. I truly enjoy appearing before him, and suspect he will be in Supreme or County very quickly. I believe, however, he was wrong in that case. As I said before, if you have an issue with the EUO, then formally object to it or show-up to it. But it is wrong to blatantly fail to appear for an EUO and to then argue that the EUO was a nullity. On the facts in that case, summary judgment should have been awarded to the insurance carrier.
RZ
raymond zuppa
Those are terms of art J.T. Not scenes from a horror movie and god knows what else. Again you distort my arguments and argue against them. What I was saying is that if you utilize the “Brave New World” of lawyer tactics you’re dead. Not literally. You’ll be okay. You’re case won’t. “I can’t believe I lost … I did so well in the Thousand Needles of Death Acupuncture P.C. case on Appeal.” However I am happy that you informed me about costs. By your logic I am only 33% hated which means compared to everyone else the Term barely hates me. You’re the best J.T. and you know I love you. I am just trying to give you summer ratings.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York EUO issues Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how euo issues cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For euo issues matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review