Post PT treatment not medically appropriate – chiro treatement consideredAugust 29, 2014

Glenn Segal PT, P.C. v GEICO, 2014 NY Slip Op 51301(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted a sworn statement by the chiropractor who had performed an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff’s assignor, as well as an affirmed report by the doctor who had performed a second IME.   Both of the IMEs were performed before the services at issue were rendered. Each IME report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the examiner’s conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for further treatment. In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the chiropractor’s report, and further failed to sufficiently rebut the conclusions set forth in the doctor’s report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009])”

Was the cut-off based upon the chiro or the physician?  Has to be the latter you would think since it is PT services?  Yet, the court commented on the chiro IME.  Interesting.

Leave a Reply