Objective reasons not necessary to prove an EUO no-show defense

Understanding EUO No-Show Defenses in New York No-Fault Cases

Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) are a critical tool in New York No-Fault Insurance Law that allow insurers to investigate claims. When medical providers or injured parties fail to appear for these scheduled examinations, insurers often use this “no-show” as grounds to deny claims entirely.

Recent appellate court decisions have clarified an important aspect of EUO no-show defenses: insurers don’t need to provide objective reasons for requesting the examination in the first place. This represents a significant advantage for insurance companies defending against no-fault claims, as it removes one potential avenue of challenge that providers might raise.

However, the legal landscape isn’t entirely one-sided. The timing and nature of objections can dramatically alter the outcome of these cases, making it crucial for healthcare providers to understand when and how to properly challenge EUO requests. This distinction between the substantive need for objective reasons and the procedural requirement to raise timely objections creates a nuanced framework that both insurers and providers must navigate carefully.

Case Background: Gentlecare and LMS Acupuncture

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51653(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)

In Gentlecare, the medical provider challenged the insurance carrier’s EUO no-show defense by arguing that the insurer failed to establish objective reasons justifying the EUO requests. The provider contended that insurers should be required to demonstrate some factual basis or reasonable suspicion supporting the need for examination before the failure to appear could justify claim denial.

The Appellate Term rejected this argument, holding that objective reasons for requesting EUOs are not required elements of the no-show defense. The court reasoned that insurance carriers possess broad investigative authority under New York’s no-fault regulations, and this authority includes the right to schedule EUOs without first establishing objective justification to the court or the claimant.

A companion case, LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51655(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018), reinforced this principle. The court articulated a straightforward three-part test for EUO no-show defenses: the insurer must demonstrate as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded examinations, that the claimant twice failed to appear, and that the insurer issued a timely denial. Notably absent from this formulation is any requirement that the insurer explain or justify why it sought the examinations.

These parallel decisions created clear precedent that objective reasons constitute no part of the prima facie case for EUO no-show defenses. Insurance carriers need only prove proper scheduling, non-appearance, and timely denial to establish their defenses, without addressing whether the EUO requests were objectively warranted or reasonable under the circumstances.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

“Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 59 Misc 3d 152, 2018 NY Slip Op 50864 ).”

One need to forget this lesson. That said, a proper and timely objection changes the calculus.

“Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the 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 twice failed to appear, and that the issued a timely denial of the claim[]“

Legal Significance: The Scope of Insurer Investigation Rights

The Gentlecare and LMS Acupuncture decisions reflect New York’s strong policy favoring insurer investigation rights in no-fault cases. The no-fault insurance system relies heavily on insurance companies’ ability to detect and prevent fraud, verify the legitimacy of claims, and investigate suspicious circumstances. Requiring insurers to establish objective reasons before scheduling EUOs would substantially impair these investigative capabilities.

This approach contrasts with discovery rules in traditional litigation, where parties seeking examinations or depositions often must demonstrate relevance or necessity. In the no-fault context, however, regulatory provisions grant insurers broad authority to investigate claims without court oversight. This authority includes the right to schedule EUOs as part of the routine claim evaluation process.

The decisions also serve practical efficiency objectives. If insurers were required to establish objective reasons for every EUO request, courts would become embroiled in preliminary disputes about whether particular examinations were justified before reaching the merits of whether claimants failed to appear. Such procedural complications would delay claim resolution and increase litigation costs for all parties.

However, Jason Tenenbaum’s analysis correctly notes that “a proper and timely objection changes the calculus.” While insurers need not proactively justify EUO requests, claimants who timely object to examinations on grounds of lack of objective basis may shift the burden back to insurers to demonstrate reasonableness. This distinction between the prima facie case and defenses to properly raised objections creates important strategic considerations for both sides.

Practical Implications: Strategy for Providers and Carriers

While insurers don’t need objective reasons to request EUOs when establishing no-show defenses, healthcare providers shouldn’t assume defeat. EUO objections may be futile in some circumstances, but proper and timely objections can still change the legal analysis and potentially save claims from denial.

For healthcare providers, these decisions emphasize the critical importance of timing when challenging EUO requests. Rather than waiting until litigation to argue that EUOs lacked objective justification, providers and their assignors should raise such objections immediately upon receiving examination notices. Contemporaneous objections preserve arguments that EUOs were unreasonable, harassing, or unsupported by legitimate investigative needs.

When raising objections, providers should be specific about why the requested EUO appears unjustified. Generic objections that merely state “this EUO is unnecessary” will likely prove insufficient. Instead, objections should identify particular circumstances suggesting the EUO serves no legitimate investigative purpose, such as when insurers have already obtained all relevant information through prior examinations, when no factual disputes exist regarding the claims, or when the examination request appears designed solely to harass or burden the claimant.

Insurance carriers should understand that while they need not proactively justify EUO requests, they should be prepared to respond to objections asserting lack of reasonable basis. Carriers should maintain internal documentation explaining why particular EUOs were scheduled, what information the examinations were intended to develop, and how the examinations relate to legitimate claim evaluation or fraud investigation objectives. This documentation may prove valuable if claimants challenge the examinations and shift the burden to insurers to demonstrate reasonableness.

Carriers should also recognize that the absence of an objective-reasons requirement does not authorize unlimited or harassing examination requests. Courts retain inherent authority to protect parties from abusive discovery practices, even in the no-fault context. Insurers who schedule excessive or duplicative EUOs, or who use examinations primarily to burden claimants rather than investigate claims, may face judicial intervention regardless of whether objective reasons are formally required.

Key Takeaway

Insurance carriers need not establish objective reasons for requesting EUOs as part of their prima facie case for no-show defenses. The three-part test requires only proof of proper demand, non-appearance, and timely denial. However, claimants who raise proper and timely objections to EUO requests may require insurers to justify the examinations. Healthcare providers should object contemporaneously to apparently unjustified EUO requests rather than waiting for litigation, while insurers should maintain documentation supporting their examination decisions to respond to any challenges. This framework balances insurers’ broad investigative authority against protections preventing abusive examination practices.

Related Articles

• Non objected to EUO
• An objective standard is not necessary
• EUO no-show case/objective reasons not necessary/ what’s next?