• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
November 16, 2018

UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51657(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ugp-acupuncture-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51657u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
November 16, 2018
Citation
2018 NY Slip Op 51657(U) · 61 Misc 3d 144(A)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Fee schedule
Legal questions
Proving a fee schedule defense (see the maps)
Cite as
UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 144(A), 2018 NY Slip Op 51657(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

An insurer may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors' acupuncture to reimburse a licensed acupuncturist. The provider sought assigned no-fault benefits and challenged the insurer's fee reductions under that schedule. Following Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., the Appellate Term, Second Department, rejected the challenge and affirmed the Civil Court, Kings County, order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the amounts sought exceeded the applicable fee schedule.

Reported in New York Official Reports at UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51657(U))

[*1]
UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.
2018 NY Slip Op 51657(U) [61 Misc 3d 144(A)]
Decided on November 16, 2018
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 16, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-2075 K C
UGP Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Santana, Nicole, Appellant,

against

21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel ), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered May 23, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered after April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to establish that defendant’s fee reductions, which had been done in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, were proper. However, this court has held, “as a matter of law, that an insurer may use the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such acupuncture services” (Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23, 24 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Proving a fee schedule defense

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove that the amount billed exceeded the applicable workers’ compensation fee schedule?

This decision: Insurer proved the billed amount exceeded the applicable fee schedule

Affirmed dismissal because, as a matter of law, the insurer could reduce the licensed acupuncturist's charges using the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture performed by chiropractors.

  • Court of AppealsCt App 1
  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 6
  • Appellate TermApp Term 238
  • Trial courtsTrial 39
2016, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2022, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2020, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Not established; open)2019, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Excess shown, 1 Defense rejected)2015, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2008, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2022, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (4 Excess shown, 2 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected, 1 Split by charge)2021, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (1 Excess shown, 1 Not established; open, 3 Defense rejected)2020, Appellate Term: 10 decisions (6 Excess shown, 3 Not established; open, 1 Split by charge)2019, Appellate Term: 16 decisions (13 Excess shown, 2 Not established; open, 1 Split by charge)2018, Appellate Term: 10 decisions (9 Excess shown, 1 Split by charge)2017, Appellate Term: 46 decisions (26 Excess shown, 15 Not established; open, 5 Split by charge)2016, Appellate Term: 21 decisions (11 Excess shown, 7 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected, 2 Split by charge)2015, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (10 Excess shown, 3 Not established; open)2014, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (7 Excess shown, 5 Not established; open, 1 Split by charge)2013, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (3 Excess shown, 8 Not established; open, 2 Split by charge)2012, Appellate Term: 20 decisions (15 Excess shown, 3 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected, 1 Split by charge)2011, Appellate Term: 18 decisions (8 Excess shown, 5 Not established; open, 5 Split by charge)2010, Appellate Term: 15 decisions (7 Excess shown, 3 Not established; open, 3 Defense rejected, 2 Split by charge)2009, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (4 Excess shown, 2 Not established; open)2008, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Excess shown, 1 Not established; open)2007, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (3 Excess shown, 2 Not established; open)2006, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected)2005, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (1 Not established; open, 4 Defense rejected)2004, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Not established; open, 2 Defense rejected)2003, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Defense rejected)2023, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2025, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Not established; open)2026, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Excess shown, 1 Not established; open)2022, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Excess shown, 2 Not established; open)2021, Trial courts: 4 decisions (1 Excess shown, 3 Not established; open)2017, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Excess shown)2016, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Excess shown, 1 Not established; open)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Not established; open)2013, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected)2012, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Not established; open, 1 Defense rejected)2011, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Excess shown)2010, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Defense rejected, 1 Split by charge)2009, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Excess shown, 1 Defense rejected)2008, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Not established; open)2007, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Not established; open)2006, Trial courts: 3 decisions (3 Defense rejected)2005, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Excess shown, 1 Not established; open)2004, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Defense rejected)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense rejected)2026, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Not established; open, 1 Split by charge)2018, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Not established; open)This decision
20052010201520202025
Excess shownNot established; openDefense rejectedSplit by chargeThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 284 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 146 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

  • Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29467) FollowedAn insurer may use the chiropractic acupuncture fee schedule to reimburse acupuncture services performed by a licensed acupuncturist.

Similar decisions

  • GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51143(U))An insurer may use the chiropractor acupuncture fee schedule to determine reimbursement for services performed by a licensed acupuncturist.
  • Gentle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO (2011 NY Slip Op 51121(U))An insurer may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors' acupuncture services to reimburse a licensed acupuncturist.
  • Health Needles Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51864(U))The insurer established full payment for the disputed acupuncture services under the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors.
  • NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51362(U))The insurer established full payment for acupuncture services under the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors.
  • BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51260(U))An insurer may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture by chiropractors to reimburse a licensed acupuncturist.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.