Key Takeaway
Court rules that healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO requests cannot challenge their reasonableness or seek discovery about scheduling letters in no-fault cases.
No-fault insurance disputes often center around Examinations Under Oath (EUOs), where insurance companies require medical providers to appear and answer questions about submitted claims. When providers fail to respond to these requests, they may find themselves in a significantly weakened legal position.
A recent appellate decision establishes an important precedent regarding the consequences of ignoring EUO demands. The ruling demonstrates how procedural missteps can severely limit a provider’s ability to challenge an insurer’s actions, even when questions exist about the validity of the underlying requests.
This case highlights the critical importance of responding appropriately to EUO requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Law matters, as silence can effectively waive important legal rights and discovery opportunities.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Canarsie Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51457(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to prove that it had timely mailed its EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, that defendant’s EUO requests were not justified, and that defendant’s motion should have been denied pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f).”
“Since plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to the EUO requests, its objections regarding the EUO requests will not be heard, and therefore discovery relevant to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was not necessary to oppose the motion (see CPLR 3212 ).”
This is the first time that the court has held that the failure to respond to an EUO demand estopps the provider from seeking disclosure as to the reasonableness of the EUO letters.
Key Takeaway
This groundbreaking decision establishes that healthcare providers who completely ignore EUO requests lose their right to challenge those requests or seek discovery about their reasonableness. The court’s ruling creates a form of estoppel, preventing non-responsive providers from later questioning the validity or timing of EUO demands, significantly strengthening insurers’ positions in no-fault litigation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several revisions, including amendments to EUO procedures, notice requirements, and discovery standards. Additionally, appellate courts have issued subsequent rulings that may have refined or clarified the principles regarding waiver of objections to EUO requests. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when advising clients on EUO compliance and discovery rights.
