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.
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.
