What is personal knowledge?

Personal Knowledge in Legal Testimony: Understanding New York’s Standards for No-Fault Insurance Cases

In New York legal proceedings, the concept of “personal knowledge” serves as a fundamental cornerstone for determining what testimony and evidence courts will accept. A recent Appellate Term decision in SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931(U), provides crucial insight into how courts apply personal knowledge standards in no-fault insurance cases—particularly when insurance companies claim healthcare providers failed to appear for Examinations Under Oath (EUOs).

This case highlights the ongoing tension between establishing sufficient legal proof and avoiding mere speculation, especially when Long Island healthcare providers face EUO no-show allegations that could result in claim denials and lost revenue.

Understanding Personal Knowledge in Legal Context

What Constitutes Personal Knowledge?

Personal knowledge refers to information that a witness has acquired through their own direct observation, experience, or participation in the events they are testifying about. It is not something they heard from someone else, read in a document, or assumed might have happened.

Key elements of personal knowledge include:

• Direct observation of the events in question
• First-hand experience with the circumstances being described
• Present participation in the activities at issue
• Immediate awareness of what occurred (or did not occur)
• No reliance on assumptions, hearsay, or speculation

Why Personal Knowledge Matters

New York courts require personal knowledge because it:

• Ensures reliability of testimony by requiring witnesses to speak only about what they actually know
• Prevents speculation and assumption from being presented as fact
• Protects defendants from unfounded claims based on insufficient evidence
• Maintains integrity of the judicial process by establishing clear evidentiary standards
• Provides fair procedural protections for all parties in litigation

The SVP Med Supply Case: A Detailed Analysis

Background of the Case

In SVP Med Supply, a healthcare provider sued GEICO to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO moved for summary judgment, claiming the provider failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs. The Civil Court initially denied GEICO’s motion, finding insufficient personal knowledge in the affirmation submitted to prove the no-shows.

The Personal Knowledge Issue

The central question was whether attorney Megan DiMicelli had sufficient personal knowledge to testify that the provider failed to appear for scheduled EUOs. The Civil Court initially found problems with:

• Time gap: The amount of time between the scheduled EUOs and when DiMicelli executed her affirmation
• Basis for recollection: The attorney’s failure to establish the foundation for her memory of the no-shows

The Appellate Term’s Reversal

The Appellate Term reversed, finding that DiMicelli’s affirmation was sufficient because:

She was the attorney scheduled to conduct the EUOs: Her direct involvement gave her personal knowledge of the proceedings
She was present at the designated location: Physical presence at the time and place established her ability to observe
She would have conducted the EUOs if the provider appeared: Her role meant she had direct knowledge of whether anyone showed up
Her testimony was credible on its face: The court found no reason to doubt her straightforward account

Personal Knowledge Standards in No-Fault Insurance Cases

EUO No-Show Allegations

When insurance companies claim healthcare providers failed to appear for EUOs, they must establish personal knowledge through:

• Testimony from someone who was actually present at the scheduled time and location
• Direct observation by the person who would have conducted the EUO
• First-hand knowledge of the provider’s non-appearance rather than second-hand reports
• Credible recollection of the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged no-show

Common Personal Knowledge Problems

Healthcare providers often successfully challenge EUO no-show claims when insurance companies submit affirmations that lack:

• Direct witness testimony: Relying on office staff who were not present rather than the person who waited for the provider
• Adequate foundation: Failing to explain how the witness remembers the specific incident
• Credible timeframe: Waiting too long between the incident and the testimony to establish reliable memory
• Sufficient detail: Providing vague or conclusory statements rather than specific observations

What This Means For You

If You are a Healthcare Provider

Document Your EUO Appearances: Keep detailed records of when you attend EUOs, including:

• Date and time of appearance
• Who was present
• What occurred during the examination
• Any issues or irregularities that arose

Challenge Insufficient Proof: When faced with EUO no-show allegations, examine whether the insurance company’s witness has adequate personal knowledge:

• Was the witness actually present at the scheduled time and location?
• Can they provide specific details about what they observed?
• Is their recollection credible and detailed enough to be reliable?

Submit Your Own Evidence: If you did appear for an EUO but the insurance company claims otherwise, provide your own affidavit with personal knowledge of your appearance, supported by:

• Documentation of your travel to the location
• Records of communication with the insurance company
• Witness testimony from others who were present

If You are a Legal Professional

Strengthen EUO No-Show Claims: When representing insurance companies, ensure your witnesses have genuine personal knowledge:

• Use the attorney or staff member who was actually scheduled to conduct the EUO
• Have them provide specific details about their observations
• Establish a clear foundation for their recollection of the events

Challenge Weak Personal Knowledge: When defending providers, scrutinize the insurance company’s evidence for:

• Gaps in personal knowledge or foundation
• Reliance on assumptions rather than direct observation
• Inconsistencies in testimony or timeline issues
• Lack of specific details about the alleged no-show

Strategic Implications for Personal Knowledge Standards

Building Stronger Cases

The SVP Med Supply decision provides guidance for both sides in no-fault insurance disputes:

For Insurance Companies:

• Ensure EUO attendees can provide detailed, first-hand testimony
• Document no-shows immediately rather than waiting months to create affirmations
• Use witnesses who were directly involved rather than relying on office staff reports
• Provide specific details about what the witness observed (or did not observe)

For Healthcare Providers:

• Keep contemporaneous records of EUO attendance
• Challenge vague or conclusory allegations lacking personal knowledge
• Provide detailed counter-testimony when disputing no-show claims
• Document any procedural irregularities that might explain confusion about attendance

Understanding the Broader Legal Context

Personal knowledge requirements serve important policy goals in New York’s legal system:

• Preventing frivolous claims based on speculation or assumption
• Ensuring factual accuracy in court proceedings
• Protecting due process rights of all parties
• Maintaining confidence in judicial outcomes through reliable evidence standards

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if I can prove I appeared for an EUO but the insurance company says I did not?

A: You can challenge their claim by demonstrating they lack personal knowledge to support their allegation. Submit your own affidavit with specific details about your appearance, along with any supporting documentation like travel records, communications, or witness statements. The insurance company must prove their case with credible testimony from someone who was actually present.

Q: How specific do personal knowledge affirmations need to be in EUO no-show cases?

A: The witness must provide enough detail to establish credible recollection of the specific incident. This includes: the exact date and time of the scheduled EUO, their physical presence at the designated location, their role in the proceedings, what they observed (or did not observe), and why they have reliable memory of the events.

Q: Can insurance companies use office staff to testify about EUO no-shows?

A: Only if the office staff member was actually present at the scheduled EUO and has personal knowledge of the provider’s non-appearance. Simply working for the company or having access to scheduling records does not provide sufficient personal knowledge to testify about whether someone appeared.

Q: How long after an EUO no-show can someone provide testimony about it?

A: There is no specific time limit, but courts may question the reliability of testimony given long after the incident. The witness must establish a credible foundation for their recollection, and significant delays between the event and testimony may undermine credibility.

Q: What should I do if I missed an EUO due to circumstances beyond my control?

A: Contact the insurance company immediately to reschedule and explain the circumstances. Document the reason for your absence (illness, emergency, etc.) and provide supporting evidence if available. Most insurance companies will reschedule EUOs for legitimate reasons, and prompt communication demonstrates good faith on your part.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Professional Insight

As noted in the original analysis, there is an important balance to strike in personal knowledge standards. While courts should not accept bare assertions that “someone failed to appear because I said so,” they also need practical standards that allow legitimate claims to proceed when witnesses have genuine personal knowledge.

The SVP Med Supply decision strikes a reasonable balance by requiring actual presence and involvement while not imposing unrealistic documentation burdens. This approach protects healthcare providers from frivolous no-show claims while still allowing insurance companies to enforce legitimate EUO requirements.

The Broader Impact on No-Fault Insurance Practice

This decision has significant implications for no-fault insurance practice throughout New York:

For Settlement Negotiations

Personal knowledge standards affect settlement leverage by:

• Strengthening provider positions when insurance companies rely on weak testimony
• Encouraging proper documentation from all parties
• Creating predictable standards for evaluating EUO no-show claims
• Reducing frivolous denials based on insufficient evidence

For Practice Management

Healthcare providers should implement systems to:

• Document EUO attendance with contemporaneous records
• Train staff on personal knowledge requirements for potential testimony
• Maintain communication logs with insurance companies about scheduling
• Create backup documentation for disputed attendance issues

Get Expert Legal Help with Personal Knowledge Issues

If your healthcare practice on Long Island faces EUO no-show allegations or other no-fault insurance disputes involving personal knowledge standards, do not let insurance companies deny valid claims based on insufficient evidence. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum understands the nuanced requirements for establishing personal knowledge in New York courts and will fight to protect your rights.

Our experienced team knows how to:

• Challenge weak personal knowledge testimony that lacks proper foundation
• Build strong counter-evidence demonstrating your compliance with EUO requirements
• Navigate complex evidentiary standards to protect your practice’s interests
• Negotiate with insurance companies from a position of legal strength
• Litigate cases when necessary to establish proper precedents for fair treatment

Do not let vague allegations without personal knowledge foundation cost you valid no-fault benefits. Call 516-750-0595 for a free consultation and learn how we can help protect your practice against improper EUO no-show claims and other no-fault insurance disputes.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum serves healthcare providers and injured parties throughout Long Island and New York in no-fault insurance, personal injury, and medical malpractice cases. Learn more about our no-fault insurance services, healthcare provider representation, and insurance dispute resolution.