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 Requirements: When Provider No-Shows Waive Objection Rights
Examination Under Oath (EUO) proceedings are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, serving as an investigative tool for insurance companies to verify claims. When healthcare providers receive EUO scheduling letters, their response—or lack thereof—can significantly impact their ability to challenge the insurer’s actions later in litigation.
The Flatbush Chiropractic case presents a clear example of how courts handle situations where providers completely ignore EUO requests. This ruling reinforces established legal principles about waiver of objections and proper notice requirements in no-fault insurance disputes. For healthcare providers, understanding these requirements is essential to preserving their rights in claim disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50758(U)(App. Term 2d 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.
“Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the affidavits submitted by defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ). Furthermore, since plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to the EUO requests, its objections regarding the EUO requests will not now be heard (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127, 2012 NY Slip Op 50579 ; Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 134, 2011 NY Slip Op 50622 ).”
This is a condensed statement of fact and law on the EUO provider no-show front.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes two crucial principles: insurance companies must properly document timely mailing of EUO notices, but healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO requests forfeit their right to raise objections later. As demonstrated in similar cases involving EUO no-shows, complete non-response creates an insurmountable procedural hurdle for providers seeking to challenge denials in court.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2013, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments, including potential changes to EUO notice requirements, timing provisions, and waiver standards under 11 NYCRR Part 65. Additionally, subsequent court decisions may have refined or modified the legal principles regarding provider objection rights and procedural compliance discussed in the Flatbush Chiropractic analysis. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when advising on EUO compliance matters.
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
No show not susbtantitated
Court ruling highlights insurance companies must prove they actually appeared at scheduled EUOs when claiming assignor failed to show up for examination.
Aug 24, 2015
EUO no-show mailing and personal knowledge substantiated
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 19, 2013
The EUO is not admissible?
New York court ruling on EUO transcript admissibility under the "New York doctrine" - when examination under oath testimony is inadmissible as hearsay in no-fault cases.
May 22, 2021
EUO is untimely and not a double no-show
New York court rules EUO scheduling was untimely and rescheduling prevents valid no-show claims in no-fault insurance case, establishing key precedent for providers.
Jul 26, 2017Was 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.
