November 17, 2009

Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29467)

Headnote

The court considered a case involving a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant insurance company. The insurance company had partially paid the plaintiff's claim but denied the unpaid portion, alleging that the charges for acupuncture treatments exceeded the maximum fees under the appropriate fee schedule. At trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff's prima facie case and agreed that the defendant had timely denied the unpaid portion of the claim. The main issue was whether the insurer could use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such services. The court held that an insurer could use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such acupuncture services, and since the defendant reimbursed the plaintiff pursuant to this schedule, the plaintiff was not entitled to any additional reimbursement. Therefore, the judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29467)

Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29467)
Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 29467 [26 Misc 3d 23]
Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication
AT2
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 17, 2010

[*1]

Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Gonzalez, Appellant,
v
GEICO Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, November 17, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Eva Gaspari, PLLC, Brooklyn, and Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York City (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury (Emilio A. Cacace of counsel), for respondent.

{**26 Misc 3d at 24} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant had partially paid plaintiff’s claim prior to the commencement of the action. At trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case and further agreed that defendant had timely denied the unpaid portion of the claim on the ground that the charges for acupuncture treatments exceeded the maximum fees under the appropriate fee schedule. Additionally, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the claim form and the denial of claim form were admitted into evidence. After a nonjury trial on the issue of the propriety of the fees charged, the Civil Court granted judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A person who seeks to practice acupuncture must be either licensed (Education Law § 8214) or certified (Education Law § 8216) to do so (see Education Law § 8212). The training to obtain a license remains the same even if the person seeking to practice acupuncture has a license in a different profession, such as a chiropractic license (see 8 NYCRR 52.16 [b]; cf. 8 NYCRR 52.16 [a]). Indeed, at trial, plaintiff’s witness, who was both a licensed acupuncturist and a licensed chiropractor, so testified. Accordingly, in light of the licensure requirements, we hold, 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 (see Great Wall Acupuncture v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; see also AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51017[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 41 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 04-10-03 [Oct. 2004] [http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ogco2004/rg041003.htm (accessed Nov. 25, 2009)]). Consequently, [*2]since it is undisputed that the instant defendant reimbursed{**26 Misc 3d at 25} plaintiff pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services rendered by a chiropractor, plaintiff is not entitled to any additional reimbursement. Accordingly, the judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.