Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 51133(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)
“Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Contrary to the Civil Court’s determination, “appearance at an [EUO] is required whether the insurance company demands the [EUO] before the claim form is submitted or after the claim form is submitted” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 721; LDE Med. Servs., P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 146[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50946[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, although the first EUO scheduling letter was mailed to the assignor before defendant received plaintiff’s first claim form, the scheduling letter was not a nullity (id.).:
It is funny watching some courts grapple with the effect a pre claim or a post claim EUO has on a matter.
One Response
The issue is quite simple, what triggered the IME or the EUO, if it was the NF-2 Then carrier needS to attach it and say when they got it and Count the time from there if the NF-3 then carrier needs to attach it and time counts from there. Some CARRIERS get it for Others its a Blackhole. Moreover the attorneys for the carrier except for a very few ones make shit up as they don’t understand the issue and argue just to confuse the judge.