Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 01921 (1st Dept. 2016)
“Plaintiff’s second follow-up request for an examination under oath was sent 11 days after defendant failed to appear on the date set in the first request; the 10th day fell on a Sunday (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]). Plaintiff correctly argues that it was entitled to an extension of time to the next business day to send its second follow-up request”
Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 01922 (1st Dept. 2016)
“It is undisputed that petitioner’s second follow-up request for an examination under oath was sent 11 days after respondent failed to appear on the date set in the first request and that the 10th day fell on a Sunday (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]). Plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to the next business day to send its second follow-up request”
Two point. First, why wait until day 10 (or here day 11) to serve a second EUO letter? Second, if you reviewed the record at Supreme Court, you will observe that there was a third EUO attempt. The letter was served more 10-days following the second no-show. Curiously, it did not appear that the medical provider raised this an issue.
4 Responses
THE MEDICAL PROVIDER DID RAISE THIS ISSUE. THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT OPINE ON IT THOUGH.
Absolutely terrible decision. If you know the 10th day falls on a Sunday. Mail It b4 the Statutory 10 days. Appeal!
Decision made sense. But, the decision really highlights the shoddy practices in which certain firms retained to perform EUOs routinely engage. I often wonder why carriers give work to firms that routinely make the same mistakes. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?
The carriers are a lil better NOW. Instead of winning every euo case I WIn 9 out of 10 now. Lol ?