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.
Understanding EUO Follow-Up Request Timing Requirements
The timing of Examination Under Oath (EUO) requests and follow-up communications plays a crucial role in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases. Insurance companies must carefully navigate specific regulatory timeframes when requesting EUOs from healthcare providers, and failure to comply with these requirements can result in the waiver of important defenses.
The Avicenna Med. Arts decision provides important clarification on how courts should evaluate the timing of EUO follow-up requests, particularly the application of the 10-day follow-up period outlined in New York’s no-fault regulations. This case demonstrates how procedural missteps in EUO administration can lead to significant consequences for insurance carriers, including the loss of their right to deny claims based on non-appearance.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Avicenna Med. Arts, PLLC v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co.,
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, as the Civil Court found, the papers submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion demonstrated that defendant’s follow-up EUO requests were untimely (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 ; Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 35 Misc 3d 146, 2012 NY Slip Op 51058 ). As the claims at issue were not denied within 30 days of their receipt (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ), defendant is precluded from asserting its defense that there had been a failure to appear for EUOs as to those claims (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 ), and, thus, plaintiff was properly granted judgment on its first six causes of action.”
This is the application of Westchester/Lincoln that I agree with, i.e., the timing of the letters as to each other determines whether the verification time=frames were adhered to, except that the 10-day period for the service of the follow-up letter should not be strictly scrutinized in accordance with relevant precedent.
Key Takeaway
The Avicenna decision reinforces that insurance companies must strictly comply with EUO timing requirements under New York’s no-fault regulations. When follow-up EUO requests are untimely and claims aren’t denied within the 30-day statutory period, insurers lose their right to assert non-appearance defenses, resulting in automatic judgment for healthcare providers.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2015 post, 11 NYCRR 65-3 has undergone several regulatory amendments that may have modified EUO timing requirements, follow-up procedures, and related compliance standards. The specific provisions governing the 10-day follow-up period for EUO requests may have been updated or clarified through subsequent regulatory changes. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language in sections 65-3.6 and 65-3.8 and review recent case law interpreting these timing requirements.
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
No Objective Basis Required for an EUO Request Under No-Fault Regulation 68
Appellate Term confirms no provision of NY No-Fault Regulation 68 requires an insurer to show objective standards for requesting an EUO. Metro Psychological.
Apr 14, 2015
Alrof Safeco made another sighting
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show motion due to defective affidavit lacking personal knowledge, highlighting critical evidentiary requirements in no-fault cases.
Jul 16, 2013
How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
Learn how to challenge EUO no-show denials when insurance companies fail to prove proper notice. Expert legal strategies for NY cases. Call 516-750-0595.
Oct 22, 2019
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, 2016Was 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.
