Examinations under Oath Have Become the Wild Wild West

An examination under oath in Massachusetts is usually used by insurance companies as a tool to deny coverage of PIP benefits. In Massachusetts auto insurance carriers are required to pay for PIP benefits to the inured passengers, drivers or pedestrians. They are required to pay for reasonable and necessary medical bills, lost wages, replacement services and other accident related expenses.
Too often insurance companies try to shirk this duty by denying coverage after the clients appear for examinations under oath. The examination under oath is a contractual obligation of the insured or beneficiary of PIP benefits to appear to give testimony about the accident. Many times clients go and give testimony with reasonable medical bills and expenses and the insurance company become judge jury an executioner with regard to paying PIP benefits. When in reality the lawyers representing insurance companies are using it as an opportunity to bill,bill, bill, then deny coverage. The insurance companies are paying more to the lawyers to deny benefits then they would have had to pay to the actual injured party.

I agree there are some instances where the examination under oath unmasks some fraudulent cases and denial of coverage is warranted. However too often honest and good people are forced to appear for the exams, and treated like criminals by defense attorneys who are payed by the claimant's own insurance company. This trend is becoming more and more prevalent.

It is also very frustrating defending an EUO because defense attorneys think the claimants attorney should just sit there and let them beat up on their client and not to object to their abhorrent behavior.

The defense attorney also think they are entitled to any document what so ever whether it is relevant or not. The case law they cling onto is the case Rymsha v. Trust Insurance Company which says that the examiners are entitled to "pertinant documents." Apparently this gives defense attorneys authority to request anything and everything under the sun including ATM records, cell phone records, text messages records, purchase and sale agreements, credit card statements, blood samples, and the first born. Well maybe not the last two. I would argue they are entitled to medical bills and medical records as the whole reason you are there is to determine if the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

Many attorneys are skipping the EUOs and adding the PIP carrier to the the third party release and calling it a day and I don't blame them one bit!