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.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, timing is everything. Insurance companies have strict deadlines for requesting Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) after receiving medical bills from healthcare providers. These procedural requirements exist to ensure prompt payment of legitimate claims while allowing insurers reasonable time to investigate potential fraud.
The 30-day rule is fundamental to New York No-Fault Insurance Law: insurers must either pay or deny claims within 30 days of receiving proper bills and documentation. If they need additional time to investigate through an EUO, they must schedule it promptly to “toll” (pause) this payment deadline. However, as this Appellate Term decision demonstrates, insurers who wait too long lose this right entirely.
This case highlights a common pitfall where insurance companies receive bills but delay scheduling required examinations beyond the permissible timeframe. Unlike IME scheduling requirements, EUO timing rules are strictly enforced, and procedural missteps can have serious consequences for insurers’ ability to contest claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2013 NY Slip Op 51106(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.
“Defendant admits that it received the bills in question on January 11 and January 18, 2010, respectively. As the EUO scheduling letters were mailed on April 8, 2010, more than 70 days after the receipt of the bills, they were untimely and did not toll defendant’s time to pay or deny those bills”
Seems like a senseless appeal.
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies must schedule EUOs within a reasonable time after receiving no-fault bills to effectively toll their payment obligations. Waiting over 70 days to schedule an examination, as occurred here, renders the EUO request untimely and ineffective. This leaves insurers liable for the full amount of the submitted bills, making such delays costly procedural errors that courts will not excuse.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and procedural requirements for EUO scheduling may have been amended through regulatory updates or subsequent court decisions. Practitioners should verify current timing requirements, notice provisions, and tolling procedures under the most recent versions of 11 NYCRR Part 65 and applicable case law, as procedural deadlines and scheduling requirements are subject to periodic revision.
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
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
Incarceration as a Valid Excuse for an EUO No-Show in New York No-Fault Cases
Incarceration can excuse a no-fault EUO no-show. In Omega Diagnostic v Praetorian, the carrier's own letters acknowledging jail created triable issues.
May 20, 2016
Disqualification not necessary on EUO no-show case
Court rules disqualification of insurer's law firm was unnecessary in EUO no-show case where summary judgment was granted, making trial moot under NY no-fault law.
Sep 4, 2014
IME No-Show Defense Defeated by an Affidavit Gap: Mailing Proof Must Cover Every Cause of Action
BR Clinton: the denial-mailing affidavit omitted one claim. Neither side won that claim; the insurer obtained judgment on the other four.
May 16, 2012
Provider EUO requests
New York court reaffirms established EUO timing rules in First Class Med.
Apr 10, 2019Was 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.
