Failure to object (again) spells end to fishing expedition on “reasonableness”

Understanding EUO Objection Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases

In New York No-Fault Insurance Law disputes, healthcare providers must navigate strict procedural requirements when dealing with Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). One of the most critical rules involves the timing and manner of objections to EUO requests. Failure to properly object at the outset can have devastating consequences for a provider’s ability to challenge the insurer’s conduct later in litigation.

The Appellate Term’s recent decision in T & J Chiropractic demonstrates how courts consistently enforce the “object or waive” principle. When insurance companies issue EUO requests, healthcare providers have a narrow window to raise objections about the scope, timing, or reasonableness of these demands. Missing this opportunity typically means forfeiting the right to challenge the EUO process entirely, even if the requests were potentially problematic.

This procedural trap has ensnared numerous providers who assumed they could address EUO issues during discovery. As we’ve seen in previous cases, courts show little sympathy for providers who fail to follow proper objection procedures from the start.

Case Background

T & J Chiropractic, P.C. brought an action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeking recovery of no-fault benefits for services provided to an injured party. State Farm had issued EUO requests to the assignor, and when the assignor failed to appear, State Farm moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the EUO no-show. During the litigation, T & J Chiropractic attempted to challenge the reasonableness of the EUO requests and sought discovery related to State Farm’s EUO practices.

The critical procedural defect in the provider’s case was straightforward: T & J Chiropractic never responded to the EUO requests when they were initially received. The provider did not send a letter objecting to the scope, location, or timing of the EUOs. The provider did not request accommodations or propose alternative arrangements. The provider simply remained silent, apparently assuming that any defects in the EUO requests could be raised later if litigation ensued.

This silence proved fatal to the provider’s case. When State Farm moved for summary judgment based on the EUO no-shows, T & J Chiropractic attempted to argue that the EUO requests were unreasonable and sought discovery into State Farm’s EUO scheduling practices. The court rejected this belated attempt to challenge the EUOs, holding that the failure to respond contemporaneously waived any objections.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50406(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“Furthermore, 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. Consequently, discovery relevant to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was not necessary for plaintiff to oppose defendant’s motion”

We have seen this before….(and before)…

Legal Significance

The Appellate Term’s decision reinforces a well-established principle in New York no-fault litigation: objections to EUO requests must be contemporaneous or they are deemed waived. This rule serves several important functions in the no-fault system. It promotes efficiency by requiring parties to address procedural issues promptly rather than allowing them to simmer until litigation. It protects insurers from having their legitimate investigation rights undermined by after-the-fact challenges. And it provides clear notice to all participants about what conduct will be tolerated.

The waiver doctrine applied in EUO cases differs from typical civil litigation waiver rules. In ordinary litigation, parties sometimes can raise objections belatedly, particularly when fundamental rights or subject matter jurisdiction is at issue. But the no-fault regulatory scheme imposes heightened procedural expectations. The regulations specifically contemplate that parties will communicate about EUO scheduling, raise concerns about inconvenient locations or times, and work cooperatively to arrange examinations. Silence in the face of an EUO request signals acquiescence.

This decision also illustrates the futility of seeking discovery to create issues of fact after failing to preserve objections. The provider’s request for discovery about State Farm’s EUO practices was transparently an attempt to manufacture a defense where none existed. Courts see through such tactical maneuvering and will not allow providers to use discovery as a fishing expedition to rehabilitate waived defenses.

Practical Implications

For healthcare providers and their counsel, this case delivers a clear message: respond to every EUO request in writing, even if you believe the request is facially unreasonable. The response should specifically identify any objections to the date, time, location, scope, or other aspects of the EUO. If the provider needs an accommodation due to distance, disability, or scheduling conflicts, that request must be made promptly and in writing. Providers should maintain copies of all correspondence and delivery confirmations.

Insurance carriers, conversely, should ensure that their EUO requests clearly state the consequences of non-response and non-appearance. While the law already imposes these consequences, explicit notice reinforces the insurer’s position and makes it harder for providers to claim they didn’t understand the stakes. Carriers should also maintain detailed records of their mailing practices to rebut any later challenges to whether the EUO request was properly sent.

From a litigation strategy perspective, this decision shows the importance of identifying waiver defenses early. When reviewing a provider’s complaint and the underlying file, defense counsel should immediately check whether the provider responded to EUO requests. If there was no response, the waiver defense becomes a powerful tool for early case resolution through summary judgment.

Key Takeaway

Healthcare providers must object to problematic EUO requests immediately upon receipt. Courts will not entertain later challenges to EUO reasonableness during discovery if no timely objection was made. This strict procedural requirement means providers who ignore or fail to respond to EUO requests risk waiving all future arguments about the appropriateness of those demands.

Related Articles

• EUO statements of law
• Non objected to EUO
• Examination Under Oath – objections waived