Key Takeaway
MDJ Medical: insurer wins dismissal after proving IME and EUO notice and nonappearance. What the physicians' affidavits and claim-form address established.
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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: This 2014 First Department record established notice and nonappearance; Gaines (2025) later applied the coverage defense to pre-claim IME notices, while the 2026 EUO time-lapse discussion concerns a separate kind of examination.
What MDJ Medical established
The insurer won this appeal. In MDJ Medical v Praetorian, 2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U), the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the provider’s summary judgment and dismissed the action for assigned no-fault benefits.
The court accepted evidence of timely IME and EUO notices and the failure to attend. The physician affidavits explained personal knowledge of the missed IMEs. The address discussion concerned the EUO notices: the address matched the provider’s claim form, and the provider gave no persuasive explanation for the notices returning unclaimed.
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.
The passage Jason selected in June 2014
MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2014)
“The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party no-fault benefits by submitting competent evidence establishing the proper and timely mailing of the notices scheduling the assignor’s independent medical examinations and examinations under oath, as well as the assignor’s failure to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 ). With respect to the latter, defendant’s moving submission, including the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physicians, set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs, and the affiants’ actions, “in the ordinary course of business,” in advising defendants’ third-party biller of such nonappearance. As to defendant’s mailing of the EUO notices, we note that the assignor’s address as listed in the notices was consistent with that appearing on the claim form submitted by the plaintiff medical provider, which, notably, offered no persuasive explanation, either below or on appeal, as to why the notices were returned to defendant as “unclaimed.”
Keep the proof questions separate
Mailing a notice and proving an absence require different evidence. Compare the successful affidavits here with the unexplained recollection in Village Medical and the unresolved absence in Sutphin. An address match alone does not establish that the appointment was missed.
The later Gaines opinion also distinguished IME notices sent before claims arrived from post-claim verification requests. Identify the claim stage and court before treating a historical decision’s denial evidence as a universal rule.
In the later GC Chiropractic opinion, the accepted proof was an attorney’s EUO affirmation on renewal. Its treatment of elapsed time does not decide the sufficiency of every IME affidavit.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show encyclopedia hub for the case directory and the distinction between notice, attendance and denial evidence.
- A 2013 dismissal on the IME motion record
- First Department treatment of the coverage defense
- A later IME/EUO proof comparison
- Brand Medical’s apartment-number objection
- Sutphin: mailing proved, absence disputed
- Village Medical: the recollection foundation
- The 2026 EUO time-lapse discussion, a separate examination
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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
A feckless appeal by Ameriprise
Ameriprise's appeal backfires as court rules late EUO scheduling letters are nullified, showing how insurers' procedural mistakes can benefit healthcare providers in no-fault...
Dec 22, 2016
Were the services billed for?
Court ruling on EUO scheduling letters and verification requests in NY no-fault insurance claims, examining when denials are timely and service billing disputes.
May 27, 2015
EUO no show – precluded due to untimely scheduling letters
New York court rules insurance company's EUO scheduling letters sent 70+ days after receiving bills were untimely and failed to toll payment obligations.
Jul 16, 2013
Verification, EUO and IME
Avalon Radiology required a new trial on denial timing after an EUO. The ruling did not finally decide benefits or create an unlimited verification toll.
Mar 17, 2021Was 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.
