EUO objections *may* be futile
Court ruling shows that EUO objections may be waived if providers fail to respond to scheduling letters, even when objecting to the letters' adequacy or content.
Read More →Sufficiency of letters and requests
13 articles by Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
EUO no-show defense sustained
Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: Court sustains EUO no-show defense, reinforcing insurer burden of proof for scheduling letters and attorney presence.
Read More →
So what did the Second Department mean?
Second Department's Interboro v Clennon decision analysis on no-fault EUO compliance and material breach standards for Long Island personal injury attorneys.
Read More →
Mutual rescheduling prior to the first no-show
Court ruling clarifies that mutual EUO rescheduling before the original date doesn't constitute a no-show, but insurers must still provide three examination opportunities.
Read More →
Proof of objective standards are waived if EUO demand is not responded to
Court ruling establishes that healthcare providers waive their right to challenge EUO objective standards if they fail to respond to examination demands.
Read More →
EUO letter did not toll time to pay or deny
Court rules EUO scheduling letter must identify specific person being requested for examination or lose toll benefit under NY Insurance Regulation 65-3.6(b).
Read More →
The failure to respond to an EUO letter non-suits another DME provider
DME provider loses case after failing to respond to EUO letter, with court ruling that non-compliance permits denial of all claims, not just pending ones.
Read More →
EUO no-show from the First
Court ruling confirms insurers can deny no-fault claims when assignors fail to appear for properly noticed examinations under oath (EUOs).
Read More →
A bill delay for an EUO is insufficient to toll the claims determination period
New York court rules that insurance companies cannot use EUO delay letters to extend the 30-day deadline for paying or denying no-fault claims under Insurance Law § 5106.
Read More →
EUO letter need not be in large font – ADA litigation here we come
NY Appellate Term rules EUO letters need not use large fonts. Important decision for Long Island & NYC medical providers on no-fault insurance requirements. Call 516-750-0595.
Read More →
This one takes the cake
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum criticizes a 2010 Nassau District Court decision in Dynamic Medical Imaging v State Farm, calling it legally flawed and against established precedent.
Read More →
Must a carrier demonstrate that a deponent willfully failed to attend EUO's in order to substantiate this defense?
Learn about EUO examination under oath requirements in New York no-fault insurance law. Expert legal analysis from experienced Long Island and NYC attorneys.
Read More →
Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
Expert analysis of EUO validity issues in NY insurance law. Long Island insurance attorney Jason Tenenbaum explains appellate decisions. Call 516-750-0595.
Read More →