Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 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.
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)
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.
“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.
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.
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
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
EUO of a medical provider – untimely.
New York court rules that insurance company's EUO request for medical provider was untimely, failing to comply with 15-day requirement under no-fault regulations.
Feb 9, 2013
Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
Learn about EUO and IME non-appearance defenses in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of Island Life and Alas Lifespan decisions.
Jul 2, 2019
EUO no show – discovery is waived when objection not lodged
Court ruling clarifies that healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness, waiving discovery rights in no-fault litigation.
Jul 13, 2016
Obligations of Assignee and Authorized entity
Key court ruling on EUO obligations for healthcare providers with assigned benefits or authorization to pay in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Mar 19, 2015Was 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.
