Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows that EUO objections may be waived if providers fail to respond to scheduling letters, even when objecting to the letters' adequacy or content.
Examination Under Oath (EUO) requests are a critical component of New York No-Fault Insurance Law, allowing insurance companies to investigate claims when fraud is suspected. However, healthcare providers often object to these requests on various grounds, from procedural defects to timing issues. A recent appellate decision highlights an important tactical consideration: failing to respond to EUO scheduling letters may waive your right to object entirely, regardless of whether those objections have merit.
This case demonstrates how courts balance the competing interests of thorough fraud investigation against provider rights. When providers receive EUO requests, they face a strategic decision that could significantly impact their ability to challenge the process later. The ruling suggests that engaging with the EUO process, even while preserving objections, may be preferable to ignoring requests altogether.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51798(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“On appeal, plaintiff contends that the EUO scheduling letters were defective because they did not adequately advise plaintiff as to why the EUO was being requested. However, 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 (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127, 2012 NY Slip Op 50579 ; Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 134, 2011 NY Slip Op 50622 ). In any event, plaintiff’s contention lacks merit since the EUO scheduling letters advised that the EUO would concern, among other things, plaintiff’s eligibility to be reimbursed for assigned no-fault benefits (see also 2006 Ops Ins Dept No. 06-12-16 ).”
My curiosity involves whether this “response” puts an end to the objection analysis, provided the EUO letters are appropriate in time, date and comply with the dictates of the DFS opinion, stating that only a provider corporation (not an individual) may be named for an EUO.
Key Takeaway
The court’s reasoning suggests that complete non-response to EUO requests may foreclose objections, but providers who respond while preserving their objections might maintain their right to challenge procedural defects. This creates a strategic imperative for providers to engage with the process rather than ignore it entirely, similar to patterns seen in other EUO no-show cases where discovery rights were waived due to non-participation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s EUO procedures and notice requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated court precedents. Practitioners should verify current No-Fault Insurance Regulations (11 NYCRR 65) and recent appellate decisions regarding EUO scheduling requirements, waiver doctrines, and procedural objection standards that may differ from the Eagle Surgical Supply ruling discussed.
