EUO letter need not be in large font – ADA litigation here we come

GLM Medical rejected the Civil Court’s requirement that EUO scheduling letters emphasize the time and place in bold or larger type. It did not decide an ADA accommodation claim. The ADA reference in this post’s historical title came from Jason’s commentary.

Historical note: GLM Medical v State Farm, 30 Misc 3d 137(A) (2011), concerns unopposed motion evidence and EUO notice requirements. Its disposition should not be extended to an unlitigated accessibility issue. The verification hub distinguishes examination requests from the later document-verification provisions.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

What was before the court

GLM Medical, P.C. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., decided February 14, 2011, involved an insurer’s motion based on EUO nonappearances, with prematurity requested as alternative relief. The provider submitted no written opposition.

The Civil Court denied the motion on grounds that included how the scheduling letters displayed the examination details and the proof of nonappearance. The Appellate Term for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts reversed and granted the insurer summary judgment.

It found no requirement that the letters conspicuously emphasize the time and place by bold or larger font under the cited no-fault regulations. That is the typography holding. It is not a finding that every small-print communication supplies adequate notice regardless of its actual contents or circumstances.

Mailing and nonappearance required their own proof

The insurer submitted evidence of its office mailing practice to establish timely sending of the EUO requests. It also supplied an attorney’s affirmation based on personal knowledge of the scheduled examinations and failures to appear.

The attorney’s knowledge was not defeated merely because the events had occurred while the attorney worked at a former firm. The court assessed that knowledge and the supporting motion record.

The case does not permit a witness to repeat an unsupported office conclusion that someone failed to appear. Identify who scheduled or attended the examination, what the witness knows, and how the relevant records support the account. Those questions are different from the size of the print on a letter.

The ADA remark was Jason’s observation

Jason’s original reaction below uses satire and speculates about accessibility litigation. The published decision does not adjudicate an ADA theory, decide an accommodation request or announce that accessibility obligations disappear for EUO notices.

A reader should therefore avoid citing GLM as a ruling that a person with a visual disability has no possible objection to a particular notice. It also does not establish that a small-font objection necessarily excuses a missed examination.

If an actual dispute involves readability or an accommodation, the notice, communications about the problem and the particular circumstances require separate review. The 2011 opinion cannot supply findings about a request or impairment that was never presented in its published analysis.

Alternative relief was requested, not decided

Jason also noted the insurer’s alternative request to dismiss the action as premature. The opinion’s opening description records that requested relief. After granting judgment on the EUO ground, the appellate court expressly declined to reach other issues.

That procedural detail matters. A party can ask for more than one kind of relief without the court adopting every theory. GLM should not be cited as holding that every EUO nonappearance leads to dismissal without prejudice on prematurity grounds.

The Elite Medical Supply note addresses a different kind of alternative: a supplier’s timely written explanation for withholding requested pricing material in arbitration. It did not determine the consequence of an EUO default.

Read the examination rules directly

Regulation 68, § 65-3.5(e), addresses an insurer’s use of an EUO, including an objective justification standard and a reasonably convenient time and place. It also addresses reimbursement for earnings lost and transportation expenses incurred to attend.

The 120-day document-verification subdivision expressly excludes EUO requests. A provider should not assume it can skip a scheduled examination because a document response period has not expired.

For a chronology involving both kinds of requests, compare Parisien v Citiwide. That decision involved written verification actually received after the second EUO nonappearance and a denial held timely after receipt. It requires attention to the full sequence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I challenge an EUO notice because the font is too small?

GLM rejected a categorical bold-or-large-font requirement for the scheduling details on its record. It did not decide a disability-accommodation claim or every notice-legibility issue. Preserve the actual notice and communications about any problem; do not assume a font objection excuses nonappearance.

Q: What happens if I miss an EUO due to unclear notice?

Consequences depend on the notice, proof of mailing, scheduled dates, communications and applicable law. GLM does not decide every unclear-notice dispute. Address a problem promptly and retain the correspondence rather than treating this historical note as permission to miss an examination.

Q: Can an insurance company pursue summary judgment on multiple grounds?

A party may seek alternative relief, as the insurer did here. But the court need not decide every ground. GLM granted relief on the EUO showing and did not decide the alternative prematurity issue.

Q: How should my practice handle verification requests from insurance companies?

Distinguish a scheduled examination from a request for documents. Preserve the notice, record the dates and identify any actual problem in a timely response. The 120-day document-verification provision is not a universal deadline for every request.

Q: Are there different requirements for providers in different boroughs?

Statewide regulations apply, but the court, appellate department and controlling decisions also matter. GLM was decided by the Appellate Term for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts; it does not announce separate font rules for each borough.

Jason’s original commentary

The contemporaneous comments below are preserved as historical commentary, with the case-specific and current-law qualifications explained above.

In an affront to those who have blurry vision and can only see large print, the Appellate Term rebuffed Judge Garson’s denial of a summary judgment predicated upon EUO defaults because the print on the letters was not large and in bold. According to the Appellate Term: “Further, contrary to the Civil Court’s determination, there is no requirement that EUO scheduling letters conspicuously highlight the time and place of the EUO by use of, among other things, a bold or larger font”. I am just thinking that if certain attorneys can become millionaires for suing restaurants and move theaters because a certain seat or bench is a centimeter outside the acceptable range for ADA purposes, why should this be any different?

The above said, the Court was correct in holding how it did. Did anybody see the hidden gem in this case?

I have never seen that before.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Triangle R: an unanswered request and a five-day-late follow-up.
• Elite Medical: a timely pricing objection in master arbitration.
• Parisien: written verification received after an EUO nonappearance.
• First Aid: an unsupported unbundling defense and separate verification claims.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.