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.
New York Courts Reinforce Critical EUO Scheduling Deadline
Under New York No-Fault Insurance Law, insurance companies face strict deadlines when processing claims from medical providers. One of the most fundamental requirements is that any Examination Under Oath (EUO) must be scheduled within 30 days of receiving a claim. A recent Appellate Term decision serves as another reminder that insurers cannot use generic delay letters to extend this crucial deadline.
The case of Compas Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. demonstrates how courts continue to hold insurance companies accountable for adhering to statutory timeframes, even when they send delay notices. This ruling aligns with established precedent and reinforces protections for medical providers operating under the no-fault system. Understanding these timing requirements is essential for both providers and insurers, as violations can result in automatic liability for the underlying claim.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Compas Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51631(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Upon receiving the claim underlying the second cause of action, defendant sent letters notifying plaintiff that defendant was delaying payment thereon, but the letters did not request any specific verification. Consequently, contrary to defendant’s contention, these delay letters did not toll the statutory time period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claim underlying the second cause of action (see Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133, 2010 NY Slip Op 51338 ). As the first letter that defendant sent to schedule plaintiff’s assignor’s examination under oath was sent more than 30 days after defendant had received the claim underlying the second cause of action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny this claim had already expired.”
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.
This bolded statement represents good law in both First and Second Departments.
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies cannot rely on vague delay letters to extend the 30-day deadline for scheduling EUOs. The court made clear that only specific verification requests can toll the statutory time period. When insurers miss this deadline, they forfeit their right to deny the claim, regardless of whether they eventually discover legitimate grounds for denial. This principle remains consistently applied across New York’s appellate courts.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
- Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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
The policy does not need to be included in the motion papers
Court rules insurance companies don't need to include policy documents in motion papers when seeking examination under oath in no-fault cases.
May 5, 2012
Provider EUO letter – serve to delay the bills
New York court ruling on EUO timing requirements and toll provisions for no-fault insurance claims, addressing when scheduling letters affect subsequent bills.
Dec 18, 2018
EUO no show not substantiated
New York court finds insurance company failed to prove EUO no-show due to inadequate attorney affirmation lacking personal knowledge and proper procedural documentation.
May 20, 2016
IME and EUO issues under Unitrin
Court ruling on IME no-show denials under Unitrin precedent - insurer's right to retroactively deny claims when assignor fails to appear for scheduled examination
Oct 28, 2014Was 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.
