Key Takeaway
Urban Well and Metro 8 accepted different witnesses' proof of missed IMEs and EUOs. Compare the 2016 decisions with later EUO affirmation evidence.
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 323 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): GC Chiropractic, 2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U) accepted an EUO attorney affirmation on renewal despite a three-year lapse; the 2026 time-lapse note concerns that evidentiary issue, not a change to the IME scheduling rule.
Urban Well involved medical examinations. Metro 8 involved examinations under oath. Both June 15, 2016 Appellate Term decisions affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, but the witnesses establishing the missed appointments were different.
Jason’s original note
Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50906(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2016)
“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining chiropractor/acupuncturist and an employee of defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME”
Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v Esurance Ins. Co, 2016 NY Slip Op 50904(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2016)
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the affirmation of defendant’s attorney who was assigned to the file and the affidavit of defendant’s employee who was responsible for the scheduling of the EUOs, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the EUOs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME (sic)“
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.
Match the witness to the examination
In Urban Well, the scheduled chiropractor/acupuncturist and an employee of the outside IME scheduler supplied the affidavits. They explained their personal knowledge of the missed examinations and the office practices used when someone did not attend.
In Metro 8, the evidence came from the attorney assigned to the file and the employee responsible for scheduling the EUOs. The original excerpt’s reference to “IME,” marked “sic” by Jason, does not change the fact that Metro 8 concerned EUOs.
Both opinions also addressed timely, proper notice to the assignor and counsel. Neither created a mandatory staffing model or required every affiant to have personally handled both mailing and attendance. The question was whether the combined evidence established the relevant events and whether the provider raised a triable issue.
For a later EUO comparison, GC Chiropractic (2025) accepted an attorney’s affirmation on renewal despite a three-year lapse after the missed EUOs. The 2026 note on that time-lapse issue addresses the age of the proof, not an overruling of these IME notice requirements.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory.
- GC Chiropractic: the later EUO affirmation and time-lapse question
- Casas Sosa: sworn affidavits and personal knowledge
- Sharp View: insufficient proof of mailing
- Harmonic: the Unitrin coverage analysis
- Four 2011 insurer wins with timely-denial proof
- Village Medical: verification and timely denial after missed IMEs
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the scheduling letters, claim chronology and motion papers.
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
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
EUO Scheduling Letters: Allstate Fails to Prove Timely Mailing
Appellate Term holds Allstate failed to prove its EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed, sinking its no-show defense in this no-fault first-party benefits suit.
Mar 21, 2016
Master Arbitrator Dachs discusses IDS v. Stracar
Master Arbitrator Dachs analyzes IDS v. Stracar on EUO compliance requirements, partial performance standards, and carrier response obligations in New York no-fault cases.
May 28, 2014
IME no show results in summary dismissal
Court rules that properly mailed IME notices to both assignor and attorney, followed by patient no-show, warrants summary dismissal of no-fault claim.
Sep 15, 2011
What happened to those EUO letters? What happened to the IME letters? Where are those denials?
NY appellate court cases showing inadequate office practice affidavits fail to prove proper mailing of EUO letters, IME notices, and claim denials.
Jun 3, 2018Was 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.
