Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;"><span data-contrast="auto" xml:lang="EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="TextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">The court closed any potential loophole that a plaintiff try</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">ing</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> to skip out on evaluations under oath (EUOs) in New York </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">might</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> use to prevent</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> any repercussions</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> from being brought</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> against them</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> as a result</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">. The plaintiff in <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MLG.pdf">MLG</a></em></span></span><span data-contrast="auto" xml:lang="EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="TextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"><em> Med. P.C. v Nationwide Mutual Insurance</em> <em>Company</em></span></span><span data-contrast="auto" xml:lang="EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="TextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> missed four EUOs before the defendant</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.  </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">The plaintiff responded by </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">stating</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> that the defendant did not </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">act on the failure to show</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">in a timely manner</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> which means within thirty days </span><span class="NormalTextRun ContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2Themed SCXW43580014 BCX8">from</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> the second no-show by the plaintiff. </span></span><span data-contrast="auto" xml:lang="EN-US" lang="EN-US" class="TextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> The court considered how the plaintiff responded to the</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">previous</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> notice</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8">s</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> and the multiple opportunities to allow the plaintiff to appear. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the failure to appear, not timeliness of the defense motion, when considering whether to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to appear for EUO.</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> Rather, the spirit of the law to incentivize parties to show up to EUOs should be remembered.</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW43580014 BCX8"> </span></span></p>
Thanks to Jordan Joachim-James for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions.