Why Trust This Analysis
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.
No-fault insurance disputes often hinge on procedural technicalities that can make or break a case. When healthcare providers seek payment for treating accident victims, insurance companies frequently attempt to deny claims by citing missed examinations under oath (EUOs) or independent medical examinations (IMEs). However, as demonstrated in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hertz Co., insurers must follow strict procedural requirements to successfully establish these defenses.
The case illustrates a critical principle in New York No-Fault Insurance Law: insurance companies cannot simply assert that a patient failed to appear for required examinations. They must provide concrete proof of proper notice and actual non-appearance. This decision reinforces the “Alrof test,” a legal standard that has become increasingly important in no-fault litigation, particularly regarding procedural requirements for examination scheduling.
The court’s analysis demonstrates how insurers often struggle to meet their burden of proof, especially when scheduling notices may not have been properly mailed or when they lack witnesses with personal knowledge of the alleged no-shows.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hertz Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51814(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.
“However, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant denied the claim at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) and independent medical examinations (IMEs). Defendant failed, among other things, to establish a proper practice and procedure as to the mailing of the IME scheduling notices (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16) and failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the EUOs in question (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 51123 ; Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ). As defendant failed to establish either of its defenses as a matter of law, its cross motion was properly denied.”
Key Takeaway
This ruling reinforces that insurance companies must provide substantial proof when denying claims based on missed examinations. Simply alleging non-appearance is insufficient — insurers must demonstrate proper mailing procedures and present testimony from witnesses with personal knowledge of the no-show incidents. The decision strengthens provider protections under no-fault law.
Legal Update (February 2026): The Alrof test and procedural requirements for EUO/IME scheduling referenced in this 2014 post may have been modified through subsequent court decisions or regulatory amendments to 11 NYCRR 65. Additionally, notice requirements and evidentiary standards for proving non-appearance at examinations may have evolved through appellate decisions since this analysis was published. Practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and recent case law developments when handling no-show defenses in no-fault cases.
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
Simple addition is insufficient
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021
Another IME no show from the App. Term First Dept
Appeals court confirms insurance companies can retroactively deny all no-fault claims when patients fail to appear for required IMEs, regardless of timing.
Nov 3, 2013
IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
Learn your rights regarding diagnostic testing during Independent Medical Examinations in New York. Expert guidance for Long Island and Nassau County claimants.
Nov 28, 2009
EUO letter to Assignor did toll time to pay or deny
EUO letter to assignor tolls time to pay or deny no-fault claims. Key requirements: timely EUO scheduling letter plus delay notice to provider.
Jul 26, 2017
Nonsensical appeal
Court rules EUO scheduling letters untimely when requested beyond 15 business days, making them nullities under New York No-Fault Regulations despite insurer's appeal.
Aug 24, 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.
