Skip to main content
Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department
Mallela issues

Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Expert analysis of the Appellate Term ruling on physician billing for acupuncture services in New York. Learn compliance requirements for medical practices.

This article is part of our ongoing mallela issues coverage, with 32 published articles analyzing mallela issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

In the complex landscape of medical billing and insurance law, questions often arise that challenge the boundaries of professional practice and reimbursement standards. One such pivotal case from New York’s Appellate Term, Second Department, addresses a fundamental question that has significant implications for healthcare providers across Long Island, New York City, and throughout the state.

The case at hand presents a deceptively simple yet legally complex question: May a physician who does not practice acupuncture bill for the services of an acupuncturist he or she hires? This question touches on issues of professional licensing, scope of practice, and insurance billing regulations that affect medical practices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island.

For healthcare providers operating in New York’s competitive medical landscape, understanding these billing limitations is crucial for maintaining compliance and avoiding potential legal challenges from insurance carriers.

The Appellate Term’s Decisive Ruling

The Appellate Term, Second Department, provided a clear answer in Quality Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50262(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010): the answer is “no.”

Jason Tenenbaum’s Original Analysis

May a physician who does not practice acupuncture bill for the services of an acupuncturist he or she hires? That almost sounds like a question that I would start one of my appellate briefs with.

The Appellate Term, Second Department says “no” in Quality Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50262(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010).

You can read the case if you want, but it follows the logic of Justice Dollard’s opinion in St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v Nandi, 15 Misc 3d 1145(A)(Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2007). I like the “c.f.” to Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 13 Misc 3d 136(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2006).

I will pass on offering my opinion on this one. You cannot have my opinion on every PIP issue now. I do not accept Pay Pal, sorry.

The Nandi Decision Framework

The court’s reasoning builds upon Justice Dollard’s established precedent in St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v Nandi, decided by the Supreme Court in Queens County in 2007. This foundational case established critical parameters for physician billing practices, particularly regarding services performed by practitioners outside the billing physician’s licensed scope of practice.

The Nandi decision created a framework that distinguishes between:

  • Services directly performed by the billing physician
  • Services performed under proper supervision within the physician’s scope
  • Services performed by independent practitioners hired by the physician

Comparative Analysis with Healthmakers Case

The court’s reference to Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. provides additional context for understanding the boundaries of permissible billing arrangements. This First Department Appellate Term case from 2006 helps establish the legal landscape that medical practices must navigate when structuring their service delivery and billing practices.

Implications for New York Medical Practices

Long Island Healthcare Providers

Medical practices throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties must carefully evaluate their staffing arrangements and billing practices in light of this ruling. The decision has particular relevance for:

  • Multi-disciplinary practices offering various complementary therapies
  • Pain management clinics incorporating acupuncture services
  • Family practice offices seeking to expand service offerings
  • Rehabilitation centers combining traditional and alternative treatments

New York City Practice Considerations

Healthcare providers in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island face unique challenges in implementing compliant billing practices while meeting patient demands for comprehensive care. The urban healthcare environment often encourages collaborative care models that must now be carefully structured to comply with these billing restrictions.

Professional Licensing and Scope of Practice Issues

Acupuncture Licensing in New York

New York State maintains specific licensing requirements for acupuncturists, separate from medical doctor licensing. This regulatory framework supports the court’s reasoning that physicians cannot bill for services outside their licensed scope of practice, even when hiring qualified practitioners to perform those services.

Medical Supervision vs. Independent Practice

The distinction between medical supervision and independent contractor relationships becomes crucial under this ruling. Medical practices must clearly define:

  • Employment relationships with licensed practitioners
  • Billing arrangements that comply with scope of practice limitations
  • Patient care protocols that maintain appropriate professional boundaries
  • Documentation requirements for multi-practitioner care

Insurance Industry Perspective

No-Fault Insurance Implications

This ruling significantly impacts Personal Injury Protection (PIP) billing practices in New York’s no-fault insurance system. Medical providers serving motor vehicle accident victims must ensure their billing practices align with these restrictions to avoid claim denials and potential fraud allegations.

Commercial Insurance Considerations

Beyond no-fault insurance, this precedent affects how medical practices structure their relationships with commercial insurance carriers. Proper billing practices help maintain provider network participation and avoid compliance violations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a physician ever bill for acupuncture services?

Only if the physician is properly licensed to practice acupuncture in addition to their medical license. Hiring an acupuncturist does not extend the physician’s scope of practice for billing purposes.

What alternatives exist for medical practices wanting to offer acupuncture?

Practices can employ licensed acupuncturists who bill under their own credentials, or establish referral relationships with independent acupuncture practitioners.

How does this ruling affect existing practice arrangements?

Medical practices with existing arrangements should review their structures with legal counsel to ensure compliance and may need to restructure billing practices.

Does this apply to other alternative therapies?

While this case specifically addresses acupuncture, the underlying principle likely extends to other services outside a physician’s licensed scope of practice.

What documentation is required for compliant arrangements?

Proper documentation should clearly establish the licensed practitioner performing services, their credentials, and the appropriate billing entity.

Strategic Recommendations for Medical Practices

Immediate Action Items

Medical practices should:

  1. Review current staffing and billing arrangements
  2. Identify services potentially affected by this ruling
  3. Consult with healthcare attorneys regarding compliance
  4. Develop policies for future service expansion
  5. Train billing staff on scope of practice limitations

Long-term Compliance Strategy

Successful practices will:

  • Establish clear protocols for multi-practitioner services
  • Maintain detailed documentation of service provision
  • Regular compliance audits of billing practices
  • Ongoing staff education on regulatory requirements
  • Relationship development with properly licensed practitioners

This decision reflects the courts’ commitment to maintaining clear professional boundaries and preventing billing arrangements that might circumvent licensing requirements. The ruling supports patient safety by ensuring services are provided and billed by appropriately licensed professionals.

If your medical practice faces questions about billing compliance, professional licensing issues, or insurance disputes related to this ruling, experienced legal counsel can provide crucial guidance. Understanding the complex interplay between professional licensing, insurance regulations, and billing practices requires specialized knowledge of New York healthcare law.

For comprehensive legal assistance with medical practice compliance, insurance disputes, or professional licensing matters, contact our experienced team at 516-750-0595. We provide dedicated representation for healthcare providers throughout Long Island, New York City, and across New York State, ensuring your practice maintains compliance while serving your patients’ needs effectively.

Don’t let billing compliance issues jeopardize your practice’s success. Call today to discuss how we can help protect your practice and ensure ongoing regulatory compliance.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.

About This Topic

Mallela Fraud Defense in No-Fault Insurance

The Mallela defense — named after the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm v. Mallela — allows insurers to deny no-fault claims by proving that a medical provider fraudulently incorporated to circumvent licensing requirements. Establishing a Mallela defense requires extensive investigation and evidence of corporate structure, ownership, and control. These articles analyze the Mallela doctrine, its procedural requirements, and the evolving case law that shapes how courts evaluate fraudulent incorporation claims in no-fault practice.

32 published articles in Mallela issues

Keep Reading

More Mallela issues Analysis

Mallela issues

Wind it up

Professional corporation can continue operating and seek no-fault benefits despite revoked license, according to NY Appellate Term ruling on Business Corporation Law requirements.

Mar 17, 2021
Discovery

Discovery penalty: dismissal

NY court dismisses medical provider's no-fault case for discovery violations and refusal to answer deposition questions about doctor's business interests

Apr 30, 2019
Mallela issues

Summary judgment granted on Mallela case

Court grants summary judgment in Mallela case, ruling healthcare providers must meet licensing requirements for no-fault insurance reimbursement under NY Insurance Law.

Apr 21, 2013
Mallela issues

Ins Law 5109 and the failure to promulgate regulations thereto is not fatal to a Mallela defense

First Department rejects argument that lack of regulations under Insurance Law 5109 prevents Mallela defenses, finding such a result would be absurd and contrary to fraud...

Dec 1, 2010
Mallela issues

Why does a Malella defense surive an untimely disclaimer, while a workers compensation defense doesn't?

Understanding the inconsistent disclaimer requirements for Malella defenses versus workers compensation defenses in New York no-fault insurance cases.

Nov 8, 2009
Declaratory Judgment Action

Preliminary injunction denied – the analysis is questionable

Court denies preliminary injunction in Liberty Mutual fraud case, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent incorporation despite gaps in EUO testimony.

Sep 16, 2016
View all Mallela issues articles

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.

New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.

If you need legal help with a mallela issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Filed under: Mallela issues
Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (6)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

DM
David M. Gottlieb
Shows how silly Mallela can be. If I gave you $25.00, would that change your mind about giving an opinion.
J
JT Author
My opinions are worth more than $25.00. Try again…
J
JT Author
I only thought in our profession that criminal defense lawyers accepted Paypal. I guess I stand corrected.
J
JT Author
I believe a disclaimer would be void against public policy… Let me ask you this: would you want to possibly be in the position where you have to pay a credit company a non-promotional interest rate from 10-38% per annum for my opinion…
DM
David M. Gottlieb
Only if you took paypal. I’d do just about anything to pay with paypal.
ST
Sun Tzu
This poorly premised decision will not stand assuming leave is sought. The defendant’s papers will not read quite as well to a the Appellate Division, or any other court in the world for that matter. Justices acting as Legislators, flouting statues and Legislative intent, ordering forfeiture of entire statutory causes of action with no statutory support. Hopefully, this Term in particular will not be allowed to live in a bubble much longer.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Mallela issues Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how mallela issues cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For mallela issues matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review