Key Takeaway
Learn about EUO requirements in New York no-fault insurance. When carriers don't need justification. Call 516-750-0595 for expert legal help.
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.
EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims: When Justification is Not Required
Understanding Examinations Under Oath in New York Insurance Law
Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) play a crucial role in New York’s no-fault insurance system, serving as a tool for insurance carriers to investigate potentially fraudulent or questionable claims. The recent decision in Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Insurance clarifies important aspects of when and how insurers can demand EUOs without providing detailed justification.
The Bronx Chiropractic Care Decision: Key Legal Precedent
In Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 2019 NY Slip Op 50423(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019), the court addressed whether insurance carriers must provide objective standards and reasons for demanding EUOs when healthcare providers object to scheduling letters.
Case Background and Procedural History
The plaintiff healthcare provider challenged State Farm’s EUO scheduling letters for assignors Rosemary Leon and Adris Maria. The provider argued that the letters failed to:
- Set forth objective standards for the EUO demands
- Sufficiently specify reasons for the demands
- Provide both objective standards and justification when requested
However, the court noted that the plaintiff only submitted proof of mailing an objection letter for assignor Rosemary Leon, not for Adris Maria, which undermined their argument regarding the second assignor.
Legal Standards for EUO Demands Under New York No-Fault Regulations
No Requirement for Detailed Justification
The court’s decision establishes a clear precedent: insurance carriers are not required to provide specific reasons for EUO demands in response to objections from healthcare providers. The decision emphasizes that “No provision of No-Fault Regulations 68 requires an insurer’s notice of scheduling an EUO to specify the reason(s) why the insurer is requiring the EUOs.”
This ruling relies on established regulatory guidance from the New York State Department of Financial Services, specifically:
- Operations General Counsel NY Insurance Department Opinion No. 06-12-16 (December 2006)
- Operations General Counsel NY Insurance Department Opinion No. 02-10-14 (October 2002)
Deference to Regulatory Interpretation
The court noted that the Department of Financial Services’ interpretation of No-Fault Regulations is entitled to deference unless the interpretation is “irrational” or “unreasonable,” citing Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 (2006).
Implications for Healthcare Providers and Legal Practitioners
Strategic Considerations for No-Fault Claims
This decision has significant implications for how healthcare providers and their attorneys approach EUO demands:
- Objection Letters May Have Limited Effectiveness: Simply objecting to EUO scheduling letters based on lack of justification is unlikely to succeed
- Focus on Procedural Compliance: Providers should ensure proper documentation of objections for all relevant assignors
- Alternative Defense Strategies: Legal challenges should focus on other aspects of EUO demands rather than lack of justification
Emerging Litigation Trends
The decision hints at potential future litigation areas, particularly regarding “serial EUOs where circumstances have not changed.” This suggests that while carriers don’t need to justify initial EUO demands, repeated EUO requests without changed circumstances might face different legal scrutiny.
Best Practices for EUO Compliance
For Insurance Carriers
- Ensure timely EUO scheduling letters are sent
- Maintain proper documentation of EUO requests
- Follow established procedural requirements under No-Fault Regulations 68
For Healthcare Providers
- Document all objections properly for each assignor
- Focus objections on procedural defects rather than lack of justification
- Consider alternative legal theories for challenging unreasonable EUO demands
Related No-Fault Insurance Issues
Connection to Personal Injury Practice
EUO issues often intersect with broader personal injury claims in New York. When patients are injured in motor vehicle accidents, their healthcare providers must navigate the no-fault system while patients may also pursue car accident injury claims against at-fault parties.
Slip and Fall Cases and No-Fault Coverage
While no-fault insurance primarily covers motor vehicle accidents, understanding EUO procedures is also relevant for attorneys handling slip and fall accidents where multiple insurance policies might be involved.
Future Developments in EUO Law
Serial EUO Challenges
As noted in the decision, the next wave of litigation may focus on serial EUO demands where circumstances haven’t changed. This could establish new precedents for when EUO demands become unreasonable or abusive.
Regulatory Updates
Healthcare providers and attorneys should monitor potential updates to No-Fault Regulations 68 that might affect EUO procedures and requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions About EUOs
What is an Examination Under Oath?
An Examination Under Oath (EUO) is a formal procedure where an insurance carrier can require a claimant or healthcare provider to answer questions under oath about a no-fault insurance claim. The examination is conducted under penalty of perjury and typically covers details about the claimed injuries, treatment, and billing.
Can insurance companies demand EUOs without providing reasons?
Yes, according to the Bronx Chiropractic Care decision, insurance carriers are not required to provide specific reasons or objective standards when demanding EUOs. No-Fault Regulations 68 does not require insurers to justify their EUO demands in scheduling letters.
What happens if I refuse to attend an EUO?
Refusing to attend a properly scheduled EUO can result in denial of your no-fault benefits claim. However, there may be valid grounds to challenge unreasonable or improperly scheduled EUOs with the help of an experienced attorney.
How should healthcare providers respond to EUO demands?
Healthcare providers should review EUO scheduling letters carefully for procedural compliance, document any objections properly for all relevant assignors, and consider consulting with legal counsel if they believe the EUO demand is unreasonable or procedurally defective.
Can carriers demand multiple EUOs for the same claim?
While carriers can generally demand EUOs, the Bronx Chiropractic Care decision suggests that serial EUO demands where circumstances haven’t changed may face different legal scrutiny in future litigation.
Conclusion
The Bronx Chiropractic Care decision clarifies that insurance carriers have broad discretion in demanding EUOs without providing detailed justification. However, this doesn’t mean all EUO demands are beyond challenge. Healthcare providers and attorneys must adapt their strategies to focus on procedural compliance and other legal theories rather than demanding justification for EUO requests.
Understanding these legal nuances is crucial for effectively navigating New York’s complex no-fault insurance system. If you’re dealing with EUO demands or other no-fault insurance issues, experienced legal guidance can help protect your rights and interests.
Call 516-750-0595 for a free consultation with an experienced New York no-fault insurance attorney who can help you understand your rights and options regarding EUO demands and other insurance claim issues.
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
There is no safety valve for a late follow-up
Court ruling establishes that late follow-up EUO scheduling letters void claim denials, creating split with other decisions on no-fault insurance timing requirements.
Jan 19, 2018
Need to wait for the non-EUO based verification before disclaiming
New York no-fault insurers must wait for verification responses before disclaiming claims based on EUO failures, as established in Alleviation Med. Services v Citiwide Auto...
Nov 28, 2015
No-show substantiated
Court upholds insurer's summary judgment when medical provider's assignor failed to appear for IMEs and EUOs despite proper notice mailing.
Jun 9, 2014
Another procedural faux pause
A no-fault insurance case where both parties lost summary judgment motions due to factual disputes over EUO notice and appearance, highlighting strategic appeal considerations.
Apr 16, 2011Was 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.
