Key Takeaway
Court ruling clarifies insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO requests, but leaves unresolved what happens when medical providers object to examinations under oath.
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.
Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases
Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) are a critical tool in New York No-Fault Insurance Law disputes. When insurance companies suspect fraudulent claims or need additional information, they can demand that medical providers appear for sworn testimony. However, the legal standards surrounding these demands continue to evolve through court decisions.
A recent Appellate Term ruling provides important clarity on what insurers must prove when seeking summary judgment based on EUO non-compliance. The decision addresses a fundamental question about whether insurance companies need to justify their EUO requests with specific reasons, but it also highlights a significant gap in the current legal framework.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51518(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
” Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an from the … that the provider failed to appear and that the issued a timely denial of the claims” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 ; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143, 2017 NY Slip Op 50208 ; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144, 2015 NY Slip Op 51653 ).”
I am still waiting for this Court to answer the following question: What happens when the medical provider objects to the EUO? No answer on this one yet.
Legal Significance
The Appellate Term’s holding establishes a clear framework for what insurers must prove to obtain summary judgment based on EUO non-compliance. This framework differs significantly from standards that some lower courts had attempted to impose. By confirming that insurers need not demonstrate objective reasons for requesting EUOs, the court recognizes the broad contractual and regulatory authority insurance companies possess to investigate claims through examination under oath procedures.
The decision reflects policy considerations inherent in no-fault insurance regulation. Insurance companies face substantial fraud risks in processing medical claims, particularly when dealing with assigned benefits where the actual patient may be difficult to locate or interview. EUOs serve as a critical investigative tool for detecting fraudulent billing patterns, staged accidents, and other improper claims. Requiring objective justification for each EUO request would substantially undermine this investigative authority.
However, the court’s decision leaves unresolved a significant question that practitioners continue to grapple with: what happens when providers or assignors object to EUO requests rather than simply failing to appear? The distinction between non-objection and objection may prove critical in future cases, potentially creating different procedural pathways and evidentiary standards.
Practical Implications
For insurance companies, this decision streamlines the process of establishing EUO-based defenses on summary judgment motions. Insurers need not expend resources developing justifications for why they requested an EUO. The focus remains on procedural compliance: properly scheduling the EUO, sending timely follow-up requests after no-shows, and issuing denials within regulatory timeframes. These mechanical requirements are far easier to document than subjective assessments of whether objective reasons existed for the examination.
Medical providers and their counsel must recognize that challenging the substantive basis for EUO requests will not succeed when the insurer has followed proper procedures. Instead, providers should focus on procedural defects such as improper addressing, unreasonable scheduling, insufficient notice periods, or failure to send required follow-up requests. These procedural challenges can defeat EUO-based denials even when insurers had legitimate reasons for seeking the examination.
The unanswered question about objections to EUO requests creates strategic opportunities for providers. When an EUO request appears overbroad, burdensome, or seeks information beyond the scope of proper investigation, providers should consider lodging formal objections rather than simply failing to appear. While this decision does not address how courts will handle such objections, the alternative approach of simply not appearing provides insurers with a clear path to claim denial based on non-compliance.
Key Takeaway
This ruling simplifies the burden on insurers seeking summary judgment for EUO non-compliance cases. Insurance companies need only prove they properly demanded the EUO twice and issued timely claim denials—no objective justification required. However, the critical question of how courts should handle provider objections to EUO demands remains unanswered, as discussed in cases involving EUO objections and discovery waiver issues.
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 a 'significant lapse in time.'...
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
The policy of insurance does not need to be included in the motion papers
Court rules insurance companies don't need to produce policy documents to establish EUO provisions when accident occurred after 2002 mandatory endorsement.
Dec 8, 2013
Objective standards
New York court ruling clarifies that insurance companies don't need objective reasons to request examinations under oath in no-fault cases, creating legal precedent.
Mar 17, 2021
No-show based upheld despite objection – with a caveat
Court upholds EUO no-show denial despite objection letters that weren't properly mailed. Analysis of when objection letters can block valid EUO requests in NY no-fault cases.
May 11, 2017
A distinction between Alrof-Safeco and reality
Court distinguishes Alrof-Safeco case, finding competent evidence of IME no-show through physician affirmation and scheduler affidavit with personal knowledge of office practices.
May 27, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO) in no-fault insurance?
An EUO is a sworn, recorded interview conducted by the insurance company's attorney to investigate a no-fault claim. The insurer schedules the EUO and asks detailed questions about the accident, injuries, treatment, and the claimant's background. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), appearing for the EUO is a condition precedent to receiving no-fault benefits — failure to appear can result in claim denial.
What happens if I miss my EUO appointment?
Missing an EUO (known as an EUO 'no-show') can result in denial of your no-fault benefits. However, insurers must follow strict procedural requirements: they must send two scheduling letters by certified and regular mail, provide adequate notice, and submit a timely denial based on the no-show. If the insurer fails to comply with these requirements, the denial can be overturned at arbitration or in court.
What questions will be asked at a no-fault EUO?
EUO questions typically cover your personal background, employment history, the circumstances of the accident, your injuries and symptoms, treatment received, prior accidents or injuries, and insurance history. The insurer's attorney may also ask about your daily activities and financial arrangements with medical providers. You have the right to have your attorney present, and your attorney can object to improper questions.
Can an insurance company require multiple EUOs for the same claim?
Yes, under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), an insurer may request additional EUOs as reasonably necessary to investigate a claim. However, repeated EUO requests may be challenged as harassing or unreasonable. Courts have found that insurers cannot use EUOs as a tool to delay claims indefinitely. Each EUO request must be properly noticed with adequate time for the claimant to appear.
Do I have the right to an attorney at my EUO?
Yes. You have the right to have an attorney represent you at an EUO, and it is strongly recommended. Your attorney can prepare you for the types of questions asked, object to improper or overly broad questions, and ensure the insurer follows proper procedures. Having experienced no-fault counsel at your EUO can help protect your claim from being unfairly denied.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.
