Key Takeaway
Court rules EUO fee demands are improper - providers cannot require upfront payment before attending examination under oath in NY no-fault cases.
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.
Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50698(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“We also reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s motion was premature in light of outstanding discovery (see CPLR 3212 ). Plaintiff did not object to the reasonableness of the EUO requests at the time they were made. Instead, plaintiff improperly demanded that defendant pay a flat, up-front fee of $4,500 for plaintiff to attend the EUO, as opposed to seeking reimbursement for any loss of earnings and reasonable transportation expenses as set forth in the regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 ). As plaintiff did not object to defendant’s reasons for seeking the EUO during the claims processing stage, plaintiff may not raise such objections in litigation (see e.g. T & J Chiropractic, P.C., 47 Misc 3d 130, 2015 NY Slip Op 50406;Metro Health Prods., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 127, 2015 NY Slip Op 50402 ). Thus, any discovery relevant to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was not necessary for plaintiff to oppose defendant’s motion (cf. CPLR 3212 ; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 …”)
I was always right that the issue of demanding a sum of money prior to attendance at EUO was problematic. Admittedly, I was of the belief that a carrier always had one free shot at the provider before objections to the provider’s appearance could be countenanced. I will admit that I am dead wrong. But, I never demand an EUO of a provider unless I had damned good reasons to seek it.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 decision, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 governing EUO reimbursement procedures may have been amended, and fee schedules for loss of earnings and transportation expenses could have been updated. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law interpretations regarding pre-EUO payment demands and reimbursement protocols.
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
EUO statements of law
Court ruling establishes that healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO requests cannot later raise objections, reinforcing insurer notification requirements.
May 16, 2013
Certified Mail and Regular Mail
New York court clarifies that EUO scheduling letters sent by regular mail are sufficient - certified mail is not required for valid examination under oath notices.
Jul 24, 2019
False statement about prior injuries warrants further discovery
Discovery of false statements about prior injuries after case filing can warrant additional examinations under oath, potentially leading to coverage disclaimer.
Oct 7, 2016
EUO denial not vague or conclusory for not stating dates
Court rules EUO denial valid despite not specifying examination dates, rejecting plaintiff's argument that omission made denial vague or conclusory under New York no-fault law.
Apr 7, 2015Was 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.
