Key Takeaway
Court ruling on no-fault insurance coverage denial due to provider's failure to cooperate at examination under oath and unlicensed practice violations.
This article is part of our ongoing collateral estoppel coverage, with 83 published articles analyzing collateral estoppel 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.
Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Gotham Med., P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 07538 (1st Dept. 2017)
(1) “The refusal by defendant’s principal, Dr. Alexandre Scheer, to answer questions at an examination under oath (EUO) about his compliance with a consent agreement and order he had entered into with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) constituted a failure to comply with the request for an EUO, a condition precedent to coverage under the insurance policy (see Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 ).”
This is the second time the Appellate Division opined on the issue of not answering questions at the EUO. The intentional refusal to comply “voided” coverage.
(2) “Defendant also argues that plaintiffs had no independent right to determine whether Scheer was in compliance with the consent agreement and order and that any determination by them of noncompliance would not render him “unlicensed” to practice medicine. This argument is unavailing. The consent agreement and order provides that any medical practice in violation of the term permitting Scheer to practice only when monitored “shall constitute the unauthorized practice of medicine.” An unlicensed health care provider is ineligible to receive no-fault reimbursement (11 NYCRR 65-3.16), and an insurer may make a good faith determination that a medical provider assignee seeking no-fault benefits is ineligible to receive such benefits (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 322 ).”
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.
The facts on this one were highly advantageous to the insurance carrier. You had a wounded warrior, tried to put the dagger into him and he refused to allow that to occur.
(3) “Defendant waived the defenses of res judicata and award and arbitration (CPLR 3211; see Mayers v D’Agostino, 58 NY2d 696 ). While the arbitral awards in its favor were not issued until after it had filed its answer in this action, there is no indication on the record before us that defendant ever moved to amend its answer to assert either of those defenses.”
I think this is the most important point to take from this case. It is the danger of being forced to allow these matters to proceed to arbitration.
Related Articles
- Understanding Collateral Estoppel in No-Fault Arbitrations: Critical Insights for New York Insurance Claims
- DJ victory
- The sad man’s DJ
- Professional Service LLC Dissolution in NY: When Medical Licenses Are Suspended
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, 11 NYCRR Part 65 regulations governing no-fault insurance have undergone several amendments, including potential modifications to section 65-3.16 regarding unlicensed provider eligibility and related procedural requirements. Additionally, examination under oath procedures and failure to cooperate standards may have evolved through subsequent regulatory updates and case law developments. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 and related cooperation requirements before relying on the specific regulatory framework discussed in this analysis.
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 collateral estoppel Analysis
Collateral Estoppel In New York No-Fault Cases
Discover how collateral estoppel affects NY no-fault claims and how new legal reforms protect your rights after a car accident.
Feb 14, 2025
Wind it up
Professional corporation can continue operating and seek no-fault benefits despite revoked license, according to NY Appellate Term ruling on Business Corporation Law requirements.
Mar 17, 2021
Supreme Court got it wrong but I saw a tactical error in the EUO
Supreme Court's ruling in State Farm v Thompson highlights strategic missteps in no-fault insurance declaratory judgment cases involving examination under oath procedures.
Sep 16, 2016
Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
Court rules supplemental affirmation acceptable in DJ case and res judicata mandates dismissal of no-fault complaint after prior declaratory judgment ruling.
Aug 29, 2014
Appellate Term Holds CPLR 3212(f) Relief Is Inappropriate Under Three Separate Circumstances
Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.
Feb 25, 2010
Where was the reasonable excuse?
Two NY court cases examine reasonable excuse requirements for opening defaults in no-fault insurance litigation, highlighting challenges defendants face.
Jul 21, 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 collateral estoppel 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.
