Key Takeaway
First Aid left a bundling dispute for trial in 2010. The opinion did not identify range-of-motion codes or establish a right to separate payment.
This article is part of our ongoing fee schedule coverage, with 118 published articles analyzing fee schedule 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.
First Aid Occupational Therapy v Country-Wide (2010) left a dispute about separately billed services for trial. Neither side obtained summary judgment on those claims. The opinion does not identify the services as range-of-motion testing; that connection comes from Jason’s original commentary.
Historical note: First Aid (2010) left the bundled-service claims unresolved on the motion record; it did not identify range-of-motion codes or establish separate payment under today’s schedule.
Last reviewed: September 2026
The motion had more than one result
Country-Wide appealed after the provider won summary judgment and the insurer’s cross-motion was denied. The Appellate Term removed the provider’s summary judgment award. It also granted the insurer dismissal of other claims because verification remained outstanding or a claim duplicated one already received.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
The bundling claims had a different outcome. The insurer showed timely denials asserting that the billed services were part of another service and therefore not separately reimbursable. Its submissions raised a factual issue, but neither party established entitlement to judgment on those claims.
What this leaves open
A triable issue is not a ruling that a procedure must be paid separately. First Aid does not identify a CPT code, decide today’s coding rules or endorse every range-of-motion bill. To apply its reasoning to another dispute, the bill and the particular bundling ground would have to be identified.
The verification ruling is also case-specific. The opinion accepted the follow-up requests under the circumstances it described. It should not be read as permission to disregard verification deadlines generally.
Jason’s historical commentary
Jason’s original view concerned range-of-motion testing. The reported First Aid opinion describes bundled services without identifying those procedure codes:
I have posted on this issue previously. Again, I do not generally believe that the range of motion testing is included in the office visit as the insurance carrier has been arguing in these cases.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Fee-schedule defense topic hub
- High Quality: unlisted DME was not automatically excluded
- Therapeutic Physical Therapy: preservation before merits
- LVOV: affirmative proof of the fee calculation
- S.O.V.: claims that survived a fee-schedule motion
- St. Vincent: later appellate review of follow-up verification
For review of a particular bill or denial, contact the firm. The decision and commentary above concern the stated record; they do not determine a new claim.
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
Fee Schedule Issues in No-Fault Insurance
The New York no-fault fee schedule establishes the maximum reimbursement rates for medical treatment provided to injured motorists. Disputes over fee schedule calculations, coding, usual and customary charges, and the applicability of workers compensation fee schedules to no-fault claims are common. These articles analyze fee schedule regulations, court decisions on reimbursement disputes, and the practical challenges providers face in obtaining appropriate payment under the no-fault system.
118 published articles in Fee Schedule
Keep Reading
More Fee Schedule Analysis
Acupuncture Reimbursements and Insurance Legalities Explained
Explore the Forrest Chen v. GEICO case and its impact on acupuncture insurance reimbursements in NY. Key insights for providers and patients.
Dec 11, 2024
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
Mr. SK Prime expanded Great Wall
SK Prime Med. Supply case marks first application of Great Wall precedent beyond acupuncture, establishing fee schedule standards for durable medical equipment in no-fault...
Apr 19, 2014
Only in no-fault can a Civil Court JHO "reverse" the holdings of the Appellate Divisions and the Court of Appeals
Understand how Civil Court JHOs can challenge higher court precedent through administrative deference in NY no-fault insurance law. Expert legal analysis.
Jan 25, 2011
April 2019 (add 18 months for no-fault): a new fee schedule
New April 2019 Workers Compensation fee schedule changes affecting NY no-fault insurance: chiropractic billing limits, eliminated ROM/MTT/PFT, reduced EMG costs, and PT rate...
Jan 15, 2019
Non acupuncture based add on codes – issue of fact
2 & 9 Acupuncture's 2017 ruling restored claims for CPT 97026 and 97016. What the record proved, and what the court did not decide.
May 11, 2017Was this article helpful?
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 fee schedule 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.
