CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 46885/05, 47943/05, 47945/05
Regular Panel Decision

Robert Physical Therapy, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This case involves three consolidated claims for first-party no-fault benefits related to physical therapy services. The plaintiff's assignors received physical therapy, and the defendant, an insurer, denied some claims due to disputes over billing codes. The central legal issues concerned whether a physical therapist could utilize billing codes from the medicine fee schedule when such services were not explicitly in the physical medicine schedule, and if range of motion and muscle testing could be billed separately from evaluation and management on the same day. The court determined that physical therapists are not confined to the physical medicine section and can use codes from any section of the medical fee schedule. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its denials regarding separate billing for range of motion and muscle testing. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding judgment for all disputed amounts.

Physical Therapy BillingNo-Fault BenefitsMedical Fee ScheduleCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation RegulationsEvaluation and Management ServicesRange of Motion TestingMuscle TestingProvider SpecialtyBilling Disputes
References
4
Case No. 2015-2337 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2018

Sama Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Sama Physical Therapy, P.C., as assignee, to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Hereford Insurance Co. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's assignor had been injured during the course of employment. The Civil Court conditionally granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to file an application with the Workers' Compensation Board within 90 days. Plaintiff failed to comply with this order, and upon renewal, the Civil Court adhered to its prior determination. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the order to make a proper application under the Workers' Compensation Law.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewConditional GrantFailure to ComplyRenewal MotionInsurance LawAssigneeMedical Provider
References
1
Case No. 2015-608 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

In this case, Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., acting as an assignee, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The original order had granted 21st Century Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing parts of a complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under specific CPT codes (97010, 97110, and 97124). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that 21st Century Insurance Company failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor to calculate the reimbursement rate, thus not establishing its defense that the charged fees exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. As a result, the branches of the defendant's motion for summary judgment related to those CPT codes were denied.

No-Fault BenefitsCPT CodesSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleReimbursement RateAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeCivil ProcedureConversion FactorMedical Billing
References
2
Case No. 2016-198 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns a provider, Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C., seeking no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and claims exceeding the fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term modified this order, finding that Allstate failed to provide sufficient proof of timely denial form mailing, thereby precluding its defenses regarding IMEs and the fee schedule. Consequently, Allstate's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff also failed to establish their claims.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentindependent medical examinationstimely denialinsurance defenseappellate reviewmedical billingassignee rightsprocedural requirementsfee schedule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giacalone v. Wehner

This case involves a challenge by chiropractors and their patients against the Chairman of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board and the Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department. The plaintiffs alleged that a fee schedule for workers’ compensation and no-fault insurance programs, which sets lower billing rates for chiropractors than for physical therapists, violates their federal constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants argued that the differing rates were a rational means of containing program costs, citing regulatory limitations unique to physical therapists. The court applied a rational basis review and found that these distinctions provided a legitimate governmental goal, thus upholding the fee schedule. Consequently, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' equal protection claim.

Equal ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentFee ScheduleWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceChiropractorsPhysical TherapistsRational Basis ReviewCost ContainmentNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. 535739
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

Matter of DiMeo v. Trinity Health Corp.

Claimant Maria DiMeo, an outpatient physical therapist aide, suffered a myocardial infarction in July 2020 following a stressful workplace interaction and filed a workers' compensation claim. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board later reversed this, disallowing the claim on the grounds that DiMeo did not sustain a physical injury. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board's conclusion of no physical injury was inconsistent with the uncontroverted medical evidence from cardiologist Leslie Parikh, who unequivocally diagnosed a myocardial infarction, which constitutes a physical injury. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's decision.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionCausationPhysical InjuryEmotional StressMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalRemittal
References
7
Case No. 535739
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria DiMeo

Claimant, an outpatient physical therapist aide, suffered a myocardial infarction after a stressful interaction with her supervisor. She filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting a work-related stress injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no physical injury. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and contradicted medical evidence that a myocardial infarction constitutes a physical injury. The court remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Myocardial InfarctionWork-Related StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePhysical InjuryMedical EvidenceReversalRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Capon v. Grumman Corp.

William Capon sustained compensable injuries to his left leg in 1970 and 1983. In the latter incident, he fractured his femur, requiring surgery. Following his hospital discharge, Capon began physical therapy with Louis Cress. On April 8, 1983, after a reportedly strenuous therapy session, Capon suffered a fatal heart attack approximately one hour after returning home. His wife, the claimant, applied for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board sustained the claim, based on Dr. Irwin Friedman's testimony that the heart attack was causally related to the stress of the physical therapy. The employer appealed, contending that Friedman's testimony lacked substantial evidence. The court found adequate evidentiary support in the physical therapist's report and the claimant's testimony regarding Capon's condition, affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal ConnectionFatal Heart AttackStress-Induced InjuryPhysical Therapy ComplicationsMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Court ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleEmployer AppealDecedent's Claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 852 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational