Key Takeaway
Court ruling clarifies that healthcare providers who fail to respond to EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness, waiving discovery rights in no-fault litigation.
Understanding EUO No-Show Consequences: When Discovery Rights Are Waived
In New York No-Fault Insurance Law, Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) represent a critical juncture where healthcare providers must respond appropriately or risk significant legal consequences. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates how failing to engage with EUO requests can result in the complete waiver of discovery rights, even when providers later attempt to challenge the requests’ reasonableness.
The Professional Health Imaging case illustrates a fundamental principle: you cannot ignore an EUO request and then later argue it was unreasonable. This ruling reinforces the pattern we’ve seen in similar Allstate EUO no-show cases, where courts consistently hold that non-participation forfeits the right to challenge discovery procedures. Healthcare providers must understand that EUO objections may be futile if not properly raised at the appropriate time.
This decision emphasizes the importance of timely and appropriate responses to insurance company requests, as silence effectively constitutes acceptance of the insurer’s position.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51026(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Plaintiff failed to allege, much less prove, that it had responded in any way to the EUO requests at issue. Thus, it cannot raise any objection to the reasonableness of those requests 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 ), and any discovery relevant to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was not necessary for plaintiff to oppose defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 ; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 ; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144, 2015 NY Slip Op 51653 ; T & J Chiropractic, P.C., 47 Misc 3d 130, 2015 NY Slip Op 50406; Metro Health Prods., Inc., 47 Misc 3d 127, 2015 NY Slip Op 50402). Consequently, contrary to plaintiff’s further argument on appeal, there was no outstanding discovery warranting the denial of defendant’s motion pursuant to [*2]CPLR 3212 (f).”
Key Takeaway
Healthcare providers who completely ignore EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness in court. This waiver of objection rights also eliminates any basis for seeking additional discovery to oppose summary judgment motions, making it crucial for providers to respond appropriately to all insurance company requests from the outset.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 analysis, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedures may have been subject to regulatory amendments or updated interpretive guidance. Practitioners should verify current EUO notice requirements, objection procedures, and waiver standards under the most recent Insurance Department regulations and case law developments.
