Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 323 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 the Timing Requirements for Medical Provider EUOs in No-Fault Cases
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, timing is everything. Insurance companies must follow strict deadlines when requesting additional verification from healthcare providers, including examinations under oath (EUOs). A recent appellate decision demonstrates how missing these deadlines can derail an insurer’s defense strategy and leave them liable for outstanding medical bills.
The case of Quality Psychological Services v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company highlights a critical procedural requirement that many insurers overlook: the 15-day window for requesting provider EUOs following an injured person’s examination. This timing rule, rooted in New York No-Fault Insurance Law, serves to protect healthcare providers from indefinite uncertainty about payment while ensuring insurers can still conduct necessary investigations within reasonable timeframes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50148(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)
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.
“We sustain the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action. Defendant’s June 26, 2008 request for additional verification in the form of an examination under oath (EUO) of the plaintiff medical provider was untimely and did not serve to toll defendant’s time to pay or deny the claim, since the request was made well beyond the requisite 15-day time period following the assignor’s EUO”
Unitrin held that the IMEs (and EUOs through subsequent case law) must be in accordance with the no-fault regulations, irrespective of the receipt of the bills. In this case, the EUO of the EIP triggered the desire to perform the EUO’s of the providers. Thus, the no-fault regulations would require that the additional form of verification be within the time constraints of 65-3.5 and 65-3.8. Also, this would be consistent with established precedent: Nyack v. Gmac., 8 NY3d 294 (2007) and Keith v. Liberty, 118 A.D.2d 151 (2d Dept. 1986)
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies must request medical provider EUOs within 15 days of the injured person’s examination under oath. Untimely requests cannot toll the insurer’s obligation to pay or deny claims, leaving them vulnerable to summary judgment in favor of the healthcare provider. This strict timing requirement emphasizes the importance of coordinated investigation strategies in no-fault cases.
Related Articles
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance at EUO or IME
- Follow up verification issued more than 25 days too late
- Additional verification not produced is probative of nothing
- No-show failed the Alrof test for EUO non-appearance
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The timing requirements and procedural standards for medical provider EUOs discussed in this 2013 post may have been subject to regulatory amendments or clarifications in subsequent years. Given the significance of these timing rules in no-fault practice and ongoing regulatory refinements to 11 NYCRR sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.8, practitioners should verify current provisions regarding EUO request deadlines and tolling effects before relying on the standards outlined in this analysis.
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
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
IME issues
Court ruling clarifies IME procedures: no videotaping allowed and plaintiff's attorneys cannot be excluded without special circumstances in New York.
Apr 28, 2013
EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
Missing your EUO can destroy your insurance claim. Learn the serious consequences of EUO no-shows in NY and how to protect your rights. Call 516-750-0595.
Oct 21, 2019
EUO no-show substantiated again
Court reinforces proper procedures for proving EUO no-shows in no-fault insurance cases, citing established precedent on certified transcripts and mailing requirements.
Sep 29, 2016
Failure to object (again) spells end to fishing expedition on “reasonableness”
Court reaffirms that healthcare providers who fail to object to EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness in discovery disputes.
Apr 7, 2015Was 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.
