Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak
In this no-fault suit, the Appellate Term holds that a no-fault insurer is under no obligation to give an explanation as to why it wants an EDO, nor to disclose its internal guidelines that govern its no-fault claims handling procedures. Therefore the Complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the medical provider failed to appear for an EUO.--LNR
* Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 16, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Affirmed.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). By order entered December 16, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion. Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that defendant's motion should have been denied because plaintiff objected to defendant's EUO demands and defendant failed to establish that the demands were reasonable.
Defendant was not required to provide the reason for its demand for an EUO in response to an objection from plaintiff. "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...