Why Trust This Analysis
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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Related Articles
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.
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
A feckless appeal by Ameriprise
Ameriprise's appeal backfires as court rules late EUO scheduling letters are nullified, showing how insurers' procedural mistakes can benefit healthcare providers in no-fault...
Dec 22, 2016
Alrof again
Court denies both summary judgment motions in no-fault case, highlighting importance of proper EUO scheduling and appearance requirements under Alrof precedent.
Apr 14, 2015
EUO letter did not toll time to pay or deny
Court rules EUO scheduling letter must identify specific person being requested for examination or lose toll benefit under NY Insurance Regulation 65-3.6(b).
Oct 27, 2013
A valid NF-10
Court ruling clarifies NF-10 denial forms don't need specific EUO dates, highlighting inconsistent First Department decisions in no-fault insurance cases.
Feb 1, 2020Was this article helpful?
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.
