Additional verification not produced is probative of nothing

Compas involved separate defenses to separate claims. The fifth cause of action was premature because requested document verification remained missing. The first, third and fourth were dismissed on proof of missed examinations and timely denials. The opinion does not collapse those defenses into one verification rule.

Historical note (September 2026): Compas (2015) should be read by cause of action. The 2026 Chapa ruling concerns document-verification denial timing; prescribed forms, IMEs and EUOs are expressly excluded from the 120-day document provisions.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The fifth claim: outstanding documents

Compas Medical v Praetorian Insurance, 49 Misc 3d 129(A), was decided September 16, 2015. The provider appealed the dismissal of four causes of action. The Appellate Term affirmed the challenged portions of the order.

For the fifth cause of action, the claims examiner’s affidavit established timely mailing of the initial and follow-up verification requests. The insurer also demonstrated nonreceipt. The provider did not raise a factual issue, so that claim was premature.

The opinion does not describe a new kind of affidavit or set out all of the requested documents. It reports the proof’s sufficiency on the record before the court.

The other claims: examination nonappearance

The first, third and fourth causes of action rested on a different showing. The insurer established timely scheduling letters, nonappearance at the duly scheduled IMEs and EUOs, and timely denials based on those failures.

Those findings should not be borrowed to describe the fifth cause of action. Nor should the fifth claim’s document-verification treatment be cited as permission to ignore examination-denial requirements.

Jason Tenenbaum’s 2015 commentary

The same caveat holds true as before.  The affidavit that promises responses to verification without the actual verification is insufficient to raise an issue of fact.  My case.  Thank you.

Jason’s statement that this was his case remains intact. His comment describes the evidentiary problem as he saw it; the published opinion does not reproduce the allegedly promising affidavit or its attachments. The headline is therefore not a judicial rule that every unattached response is legally worthless.

What evidence of an actual response can change

The New Way decision from November 2015 provides a useful contrast. A provider employee’s affidavit supported a mailing-and-receipt presumption and created a triable issue. That result prevents the historical Compas comment from becoming a categorical rule against affidavit evidence.

A promise to send verification and evidence that a particular response was sent are different things. A practical review should identify what the affidavit says happened, when it happened, and what records or procedures support the account. If it describes only future production, it does not explain past compliance.

The August Eagle Surgical appeal offers the carrier-side comparison: request-mailing evidence did not establish that verification remained outstanding. Compas succeeded where that earlier record failed, but the opinions do not prescribe a universal witness script.

Keep the requests on separate tracks

For a file containing both document requests and examination notices, identify which bill and defense each notice supports. Maintain the document-response chronology separately from the examination dates and proof of nonappearance. If a denial relies on multiple grounds, connect each ground to its evidence.

This organization is a practical aid. It avoids assuming that a documented missed appointment proves the nonreceipt of medical records, or that outstanding documents explain why an examination denial was timely.

The current DFS text expressly excludes prescribed NF forms, medical examinations and EUOs from §§ 65-3.5(o) and 65-3.8(b)(3). The document-response rule therefore cannot simply be applied to every event bearing the label “verification.”

The later Chapa decision is not a universal no-denial rule

Chapa’s 2026 reversal rejected the mandatory 150-day cutoff imposed in the earlier appellate decision. It addressed a denial actually issued on a document-verification ground. The court did not decide that no-fault insurers can always dispense with denials.

Read Compas for the distinct proof it accepted, and the verification hub for the later document rule. That pairing preserves the historical case’s usefulness without treating its examination holdings as an extension of Chapa.

For a particular claim, the requested relief matters too. A finding that an action was commenced prematurely is not the same as a medical-necessity decision. In Compas, the cause-of-action number helps keep that distinction clear.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Eagle Surgical in August 2010: the gap in nonreceipt proof.
• Viviane Etienne in 2013: separate verification and fee-schedule outcomes.
• New Way: mailing evidence and two different claim results.
• Eagle Surgical in October 2010: an attached but incomplete response.
• Doctor Goldshteyn: partial production and the objection question.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.