Why Trust This Analysis
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.
This case demonstrates how insurance companies’ procedural missteps can work in favor of healthcare providers pursuing New York No-Fault Insurance Law claims. Ameriprise Insurance found itself in hot water when the Appellate Term ruled against them for failing to follow proper timing requirements for Examinations Under Oath (EUO). The decision highlights a critical aspect of no-fault law: insurers must strictly adhere to regulatory deadlines, or risk losing their ability to deny claims altogether.
The case involved A.C. Medical, P.C. seeking payment from Ameriprise for medical services. What makes this particularly noteworthy is how the court applied the “nullity” doctrine - essentially voiding Ameriprise’s EUO scheduling letters because they were sent too late. This creates an interesting strategic question about whether EUO no-shows might sometimes benefit claimants when insurers fail to follow proper procedures.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
A.C. Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51787(U) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
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.
“Pursuant to the no-fault regulations, “any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim shall be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 ). Since defendant received the claim in the amount of $403.58 on August 28, 2012 and mailed an EUO scheduling letter to plaintiff on September 26, 2012, defendant’s time to pay or deny that claim was reduced by the number of days that the EUO request was late (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ). However, defendant did not timely deny that claim after plaintiff had failed to appear for the second scheduled EUO (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ). With respect to the remaining claims, because defendant did not mail its first EUO scheduling letter to plaintiff within 30 calendar days of receiving those claims, the scheduling letter was rendered a nullity by its untimeliness”
I almost ask myself – are you sometimes better off not showing up for the EUO?
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that insurers cannot escape the consequences of their own procedural failures. When EUO scheduling letters are sent late, they become legally meaningless, and subsequent no-shows by providers cannot be used as grounds for claim denial. The strict timing requirements exist to protect healthcare providers and ensure prompt claim resolution.
Legal Update (February 2026): The EUO timing requirements and procedural standards discussed in this 2016 analysis may have been modified through subsequent amendments to 11 NYCRR 65-3, particularly sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.8 governing verification requests and examination procedures. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions, as no-fault procedural requirements have undergone periodic revisions since this post’s publication.
Related Articles
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
Dilemma and dogma
Court ruling on EUO timing requirements in NY no-fault cases - insurer failed to prove compliance with 15-day deadline for examination under oath notices.
Jun 30, 2018
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
An objective basis is not needed (again) to schedule an EUO
New York court rules insurers don't need objective basis to schedule EUO in no-fault cases. Flow Chiropractic v Travelers establishes carrier discretion.
Aug 6, 2014
EUO no-show from the First
Court ruling confirms insurers can deny no-fault claims when assignors fail to appear for properly noticed examinations under oath (EUOs).
Feb 24, 2012Was 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.
