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.
Understanding EUO Non-Compliance: When Silence Leads to Case Dismissal
Examination Under Oath (EUO) requests are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, serving as an insurance carrier’s tool to investigate potentially fraudulent claims. When medical providers or their assignors fail to respond to these requests, the consequences can be severe and far-reaching. The recent Appellate Term decision in Leica Supply, Inc. v Encompass Indemnity Co. demonstrates just how costly silence can be in the no-fault insurance context.
This case highlights a common misconception among healthcare providers and durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers: that failing to appear for an EUO only affects pending claims. As the court made clear, the ramifications extend much further, potentially jeopardizing a provider’s ability to recover on any claims related to the underlying treatment.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Leica Supply, Inc. v Encompass Indem. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50890(U)(App. Term 2nd Dept. 2012)
Plaintiff’s argument that its assignor’s failure to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs permitted only the denial of pending claims is without merit (see ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134, 2011 NY Slip Op 52382 ). Moreover, plaintiff does not claim to have responded to the EUO requests; therefore, plaintiff’s objection on appeal regarding those requests will not be heard
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.
The next issue to be tackled: What happens when Plaintiff responds to the EUO demands and still fails to attend the EUO? Do we finally reach a reasonableness analysis? I would say I can hardly wait, but it is the lack of certainty that makes reading these decisions interesting. As each gap gets filled, this sometimes becomes an exercise in who can cite the most principles of law.
Key Takeaway
Complete non-response to EUO requests can result in dismissal of all claims, not just pending ones. The court reinforced that when a provider fails to even respond to an EUO letter, they waive their right to object to the reasonableness of the request. This creates a bright-line rule that distinguishes between cases where providers object but fail to appear and situations involving total non-compliance.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several revisions, including amendments to Insurance Regulation 68 and updates to procedural requirements for EUO scheduling and compliance. Practitioners should verify current EUO notification requirements, response timeframes, and the specific grounds for claim denial under the most recent regulatory framework, as procedural standards may have evolved.
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
Timeliness of the EUO relative to the billings (again)
Recent New York appellate cases reinforce that insurance companies must schedule EUOs within 30 days of receiving no-fault claims to preserve their right to examination.
Dec 26, 2017
EUO no show defense substantiated
Court ruling confirms insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO demands when proving prima facie case for no-show defense in New York no-fault claims.
Nov 28, 2015
Alrof citing again – never a good thing
Court cites problematic Alrof precedent again for EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing issues with personal knowledge requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Apr 19, 2014
EUO No-Show Defense: Summary Judgment Granted for Failure to Attend in New York
NY court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend EUO after proper mailing of scheduling letters.
Aug 19, 2010Was 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.
