What happens when an insurer denies all future benefits based on the results of an independent medical examination (IME), but subsequently demands the injured person submit to an examination under oath (EUO)? In Hempstead Regional Chiropractic v. Allstate,1 the defendant insurer issued an “IME cut-off” denial, denying all future benefits based on the results of an IME. Subsequently, the insurer sent the claimant/injured party a letter demanding he appear for an EUO. His attorney responded to the insurer’s EUO demand letter and advised the insurer, inter alia, that because the insurer has already determined to deny all benefits based on the IME, the claimant would not appear for an EUO.2
After the claimant did not appear for the first scheduled EUO, the insurer sent two more letters, scheduling two subsequent EUOs. In accordance with his attorney’s letter, the claimant did not appear for any of the scheduled EUOs. The plaintiff medical providers submitted bills to the insurer for post-IME treatment rendered, the insurer denied the bills based on the claimant’s failure to appear for scheduled EUOs,3 and the medical providers brought suit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
