Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 291 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
291 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
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
Final order of preclusion became automatic – no need to move for one
Court rules conditional preclusion order becomes automatic upon non-compliance, but plaintiff still must prove prima facie case for summary judgment
May 5, 2012
EUO Bust Statement Best Practices: New York No-Fault Insurance Defense
Master EUO bust statements in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert legal analysis of procedural requirements & common mistakes. Call 516-750-0595 for help.
Aug 10, 2019
CPLR 3101(i) Video Disclosure: Mid-Trial Dismissal Reversed in Fox v Grand Slam
Fox v Grand Slam Banquet Hall: the First Department reverses a mid-trial dismissal for belated video disclosure under CPLR 3101(i), absent willful conduct.
Sep 16, 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, 2014Was 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 discovery 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.
