Key Takeaway
Court rules that plaintiffs who fail to respond to EUO requests cannot later object to defective scheduling letters, waiving their right to challenge procedural defects.
Understanding Examination Under Oath Objections: When Silence Equals Waiver
In no-fault insurance litigation, the Examination Under Oath (EUO) serves as a critical discovery tool for insurers investigating claims. However, the procedural requirements surrounding EUO scheduling can be complex, and both insurers and medical providers must understand when objections to defective notices are preserved versus waived.
The Appellate Term’s decision in Bay LS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. illustrates an important principle: failing to respond entirely to EUO requests can result in the waiver of otherwise valid objections to procedural defects. This ruling has significant implications for New York No-Fault Insurance Law practitioners representing medical providers in coverage disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Bay LS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50319(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Although the Civil Court found that defendant had established plaintiff’s nonappearances, the court held, as plaintiff argues, that defendant’s EUO scheduling letters were defective. However, under the circumstances presented, as plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to defendant’s EUO requests, plaintiff’s objections regarding the EUO scheduling letters will not be heard (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 128, 2014 NY Slip Op 51798 ; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127, 2012 NY Slip Op 50579 ). In light of the foregoing, defendant’s cross motion should have been granted. We pass on no other issue.”
The EUO objections will not be heard since there was no objection.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that medical providers cannot remain completely silent when served with EUO requests and then later challenge procedural defects in the scheduling letters. Even when EUO notices contain technical deficiencies, the failure to object or respond in any manner waives the right to raise those objections in subsequent litigation. This principle aligns with similar rulings where EUO no-shows result in waived discovery rights when proper objections aren’t lodged.
