Key Takeaway
Arcadia Acupuncture v Nationwide: disputed EUO location convenience prevented either side from obtaining summary judgment on one group of no-fault claims.
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026. A dispute over an examination-under-oath location is not the same as proof that the examination was invalid. In this appeal, an unresolved factual issue prevented both sides from winning summary judgment on certain claims.
Historical note (September 2026): this note reads a 2022 decision on EUO location convenience under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(e); the regulation text is linked in the text. For the 2025–2026 EUO no-show decisions, including the attorney-affirmation proof problem, see EUO no-show: attorney affirmation and time lapse.
Case Background
Arcadia Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Insurance Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 51258(U), was decided December 22, 2021, by the Appellate Term, Second Department.
The provider sought assigned no-fault benefits. Nationwide moved for dismissal based on EUO nonappearances, and the provider cross-moved for summary judgment.
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.
What the court decided
For claims received May 11–June 22, 2018, the insurer established timely mailing of EUO letters, nonappearance and timely denial. Those dates concern receipt of claims, not the dates the examinations were held.
Location convenience remained disputed under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(e). Neither side was entitled to summary judgment on that group; the appellate court removed the provider’s favorable summary-judgment relief.
For claims received March 22–April 27, 2018, the denials were untimely. The provider’s partial summary judgment on liability remained in place.
The court cited Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 2020 NY Slip Op 50845(U), on convenience, and St. Vincent’s Hospital of Richmond v Government Employees Insurance Co., 50 AD3d 1123 (2008), on mailing.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original February 2022 analysis
I have to wonder what proof is necessary for a defendant to prove that the EUO or IME is reasonably convenient? As to EUOS – in this virtual world – that should not be an issue. As to IMEs, is this based on a county by county approach?
The virtual-examination observation is Jason’s question, not a holding that video automatically satisfies the regulation.
Legal Significance
The DFS text of Regulation 68 is the starting point for the examination requirements. Read the relevant subsection alongside the policy endorsement.
The opinion does not announce a fixed county boundary, mileage limit or exhaustive convenience test. Nor does it equate an EUO with an independent medical examination.
A dispute about convenience should not be confused with the separate questions of timely scheduling, mailing, nonappearance and denial.
Practical Implications for Attorneys and Litigants
A review file should let counsel reconstruct what was requested and how the parties responded:
- Each scheduling letter and proof of transmission.
- The proposed place, date and time.
- Any written objection and the reason given.
- Alternative arrangements proposed or agreed upon.
- Attendance records and each affected claim’s receipt and denial dates.
If attendance is a problem, seek prompt advice about communicating that problem and requesting an alternative. Do not assume that silence, a missed examination or a proposed video appearance preserves every defense.
For the broader process, see the firm’s no-fault defense practice. The IME no-show case discussion concerns a related but distinct examination setting.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Topic hub: Examination Under Oath (EUO)
- Summary judgment under CPLR 3212(g)
- Declaratory judgments and Civil Court judgments
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Legal Encyclopedia
- No-Fault Billing: How to Dodge Deadline Disasters
- EUO No-Show Victory: Strategic Legal Analysis for Long Island & NYC Medical Providers
This note discusses the reported 2021 disposition and Jason’s 2022 commentary. A different scheduling dispute requires review of its own record and later case law.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
My body my choice
New York court affirms plaintiff's right to undergo surgery before independent medical examination, rejecting defendant's spoliation claims in personal injury case.
Dec 8, 2021
Another hiccup to the briefing schedule rule
Learn about court briefing schedule rules and judicial discretion in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert legal analysis of Golden Star decision.
Jun 21, 2019
The amendments to the regulations and what they mean to you.
The 2013 Regulation 68-C amendment, its effective-date limits, verification and denial provisions, and what Chapa clarified about the 120-day rule in 2026.
Feb 14, 2013
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, 2025Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What does the Arcadia decision say about EUO location convenience?
For claims received from May 11 through June 22, 2018, the court found a factual dispute over whether the EUO location was reasonably convenient. Neither party received summary judgment on those claims.
Did proper mailing and timely denial resolve the case?
No. Those points were established for the later claims, but the location dispute remained. A separate earlier group of claims had untimely denials and a different result.
Did the court decide that virtual EUOs are always sufficient?
No. Jason’s original note asked about virtual EUOs; the reported decision did not decide that question.
Was 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 no-fault 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.
