Key Takeaway
Court ruling establishes that healthcare providers waive their right to challenge EUO objective standards if they fail to respond to examination demands.
Understanding the Waiver of EUO Objections in No-Fault Cases
Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) represent one of the most contentious aspects of New York No-Fault Insurance Law. Insurance carriers frequently use EUO demands as a tool to deny claims, while healthcare providers and patients often challenge the legitimacy of these requests. A significant 2013 appellate decision has clarified an important procedural rule: failing to respond to an EUO demand can waive your right to challenge the examination’s validity entirely.
This ruling has particular significance for practitioners familiar with District Nassau’s requirements for “objective standards” in EUO cases. The decision suggests that non-responsive parties cannot later argue that an insurance company failed to meet the burden of proving legitimate grounds for the examination request.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51880(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to prove that it had mailed its EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, that defendant lacked justification for its EUO requests, and that defendant’s motion should have been denied pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), as plaintiff had not received discovery regarding the reasonableness of defendant’s EUO requests.”
…
“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”
This case is significant because now proof of “objective standards” will be deemed waived if a provider or EIP does not respond to EUO demands. In District Nassau, my research has divined that those judges requires”objective standards” as part of a prima facie showing. That hopefully will end.
Key Takeaway
The Flatbush Chiropractic decision establishes a clear procedural rule: healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO demands forfeit their ability to challenge the examination’s validity later in litigation. This waiver principle may eliminate the need for insurance carriers to prove “objective standards” in certain jurisdictions, fundamentally shifting the tactical landscape for EUO-related disputes. Providers must now carefully consider whether to engage with EUO requests rather than simply ignoring them, as silence can have significant legal consequences that extend beyond the immediate examination requirement.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 analysis, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments, and appellate decisions may have further refined the standards for EUO waiver procedures and objective justification requirements. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law regarding EUO response obligations, as procedural requirements and waiver standards may have evolved significantly over the past decade.
