Key Takeaway
Court cites problematic Alrof precedent again for EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing issues with personal knowledge requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Understanding EUO No-Show Requirements and the Problematic Alrof Precedent
When insurance companies seek to deny no-fault benefits based on a patient’s failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath (EUO), they must meet specific evidentiary requirements. A recent Appellate Term decision highlights the continued judicial reliance on the controversial Alrof case, despite its questionable legal foundation.
The case of Muhammad Tahir, M.D., P.C. v Hertz Claims Mgt demonstrates how courts continue to apply strict personal knowledge standards for proving EUO non-appearances. This requirement has created significant challenges for insurance carriers seeking to establish valid defenses based on EUO objections and procedural failures.
Understanding these evidentiary standards is crucial for both healthcare providers and insurers navigating New York No-Fault Insurance Law, particularly when dealing with cases involving substantiated no-shows.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Muhammad Tahir, M.D., P.C. v Hertz Claims Mgt.,2014 NY Slip Op 50625(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.”
“Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ).”
If you follow this blog, you will know that “Alrof” is not really good law. For reasons I am not even going to discuss on here, I ended up challenging this proposition of law and prevailed on it. The First Department (ATIC v. Lucas), the Second Department (Interboro v. Clennon) and this Court (Quality v. Interboro; Ortho Products v. Interboro) have all found that Alrof does not mean what it says.
But, in this Court, if you wish to resurrect W&Z v. Amex, the affidavit from the “partner” had better lead that horse to water and make it drink it. And, it is not the quantity of verbiage that is in the affirmation which will win the day, it is how you present it, lay it out and assert it.
Key Takeaway
Despite multiple appellate courts rejecting the Alrof precedent’s interpretation of personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-shows, some trial courts continue citing it. Success in these cases depends not on lengthy affirmations but on precise presentation of evidence with proper foundation and clear assertion of the relevant facts.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2014, New York’s EUO procedures and evidentiary standards may have evolved through regulatory amendments, updated court rules, or subsequent appellate decisions that could affect the personal knowledge requirements for proving non-appearance. The reliance on Alrof precedent and related evidentiary standards discussed here may have been clarified or modified by more recent case law. Practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and evidentiary standards when handling EUO non-appearance cases.
