Another unsuccessful 4518(a) challenge

New York’s courts continue to refine the boundaries of the business records exception under CPLR 4518(a), particularly in no-fault insurance disputes. The case Sin Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. demonstrates how insurance companies can successfully defend claims by proving proper notice was given, even without satisfying traditional business records requirements.

This decision reflects a broader trend where courts recognize that documents offered to prove they were sent—rather than to establish the truth of their contents—fall outside the hearsay rule entirely. This distinction has significant implications for no-fault practitioners, as it means certain procedural documents like examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters and independent medical examination notices may not need to meet the stringent CPLR 4518(a) requirements that have traditionally governed business record admissibility.

The ruling also highlights how sworn stenographic transcripts can effectively establish a patient’s failure to appear for required examinations, providing insurers with a clear path to deny coverage based on non-compliance with policy requirements.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Sin Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51246(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)

(1) Contrary to the Civil Court’s conclusion, defendant’s failure to establish that the EUO scheduling letters constituted evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay as set forth in CPLR 4518 is of no consequence. Defendant did not offer the EUO scheduling letters to establish the “truth” of any matters asserted therein, but rather to show that the letters had been sent. As the letters were not offered for a hearsay purpose, they did not need to qualify as business records pursuant to CPLR 4518

(2) Furthermore, defendant established, based upon sworn stenographic transcripts, that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs

The 4518 argument lost luster when the Court held that policy declaration sheets did not have to be in evidence to be considered along with denial of claim forms. By analogy, EUO letters and IME letters were next to be considered under the “it is not a 4518 rule” doctrine.

Legal Significance

The Sin Medical decision reflects a fundamental shift in how courts analyze documentary evidence in no-fault insurance litigation. By distinguishing between documents offered for their truth versus documents offered merely to show they existed or were sent, the court applied basic hearsay principles that carry profound practical implications. This distinction traces back to foundational evidence law: hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. When a document is introduced solely to demonstrate that it was mailed or sent—not to prove the accuracy of its contents—it falls outside the hearsay definition entirely.

The court’s parallel finding regarding sworn stenographic transcripts provides insurers with a powerful tool for establishing EUO non-appearance. Stenographic transcripts carry inherent reliability because they are created by certified court reporters who swear to their accuracy. Unlike affidavits from insurance company employees, which may be challenged for lack of personal knowledge or bias, stenographic transcripts documenting a failed EUO appearance provide objective, third-party verification that is difficult to rebut.

This ruling also illustrates the evolution of no-fault procedural law. Earlier decisions required strict compliance with CPLR 4518(a) business records requirements for virtually all documents submitted in support of summary judgment motions. However, courts have increasingly recognized that such rigid application creates unnecessary barriers when the document’s purpose doesn’t implicate hearsay concerns.

Practical Implications

For insurance companies, this decision provides clear guidance on how to structure summary judgment motions based on EUO or IME non-appearance. Rather than expending resources on establishing business records foundations for scheduling letters, insurers can focus on demonstrating that the letters were properly mailed to the correct address. This streamlined approach reduces litigation costs and eliminates a common avenue for plaintiff opposition.

Healthcare providers challenging EUO or IME no-show defenses must adjust their litigation strategy accordingly. Attacking the admissibility of scheduling letters under CPLR 4518(a) will generally prove futile. Instead, providers should focus on substantive issues: Was the scheduling letter sent to the correct address? Did it allow sufficient advance notice? Were the examination location and timing reasonably convenient? Did the provider or assignor have a legitimate excuse for non-appearance?

The decision also highlights the value of retaining certified stenographers for EUO proceedings. The sworn transcript not only memorializes what occurred (or didn’t occur) but also creates admissible evidence of non-appearance that can support summary judgment without requiring additional affidavits or testimony from insurance company personnel.

Key Takeaway

This decision expands the “non-hearsay” doctrine in no-fault litigation, allowing insurers to introduce scheduling letters and similar documents without meeting business records requirements when the purpose is proving mailing rather than content truth. This procedural advantage significantly strengthens insurers’ ability to demonstrate proper notice and patient non-compliance in coverage disputes.

Related Articles

• Claims documents considered as business records and unsuccessful mailing challenge
• Business records (CPLR 4518[a]) back to the Appellate Division
• A very impressive win.