Key Takeaway
Sung Bok Lee upheld an acupuncture fee reduction in 2011. The reported opinion did not decide a SAPA challenge or announce a general deference rule.
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.
The reported decision in Sung Bok Lee v Metropolitan Property (2011) is a short acupuncture fee-schedule ruling. The provider appealed, and the Appellate Term affirmed dismissal. The opinion does not announce a SAPA doctrine or discuss JHO Spodak.
Legal Update (September 2026): Acupuncture Now (2026) still applies the older comparison-rate rule to pre-October-2020 services; Sung Bok Lee is an earlier fee decision, not a current SAPA guide.
Last reviewed: September 2026
The holding in the reported opinion
The court held that the insurer could use the chiropractic acupuncture schedule to calculate payment for licensed-acupuncturist services. It cited AVA Acupuncture and Great Wall. The opinion identifies an order by Judge Diane A. Lebedeff and affirms the judgment entered on that order.
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.
SAPA, Chevron and JHO Spodak do not appear in the opinion. Jason’s brief comment below may reflect the litigation context he knew, but that context cannot be reconstructed from the reported decision alone.
The administrative-law question is separate
New York’s State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 distinguishes rules from merely explanatory interpretive statements that have no legal effect of their own. Sung Bok Lee does not analyze that distinction. It therefore does not support a general instruction that hearing officers must accept agency interpretations or that an agency’s position automatically controls a no-fault dispute.
The useful holding here is narrower: the old comparison schedule was permissible in this acupuncture reimbursement case. Its application to later treatment must account for the subsequent schedule adoption.
Jason’s historical commentary
Jason’s original comment refers to JHO Spodak. The reported appellate opinion does not identify Spodak or discuss that analysis; it identifies Judge Diane A. Lebedeff’s order and affirms the resulting judgment:
The Appellate Term Second Department does not seem impressed with JHO Spodak’s analysis of why the DOI is unable to interpret its own regulations.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Fee-schedule defense topic hub
- Okslen: the First Department’s physician-schedule ruling
- Raz: the initial visit remained unresolved
- Oriental World: the later Great Wall reversal
- LVOV: proof beyond a general fee-schedule objection
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
Surgical Center Does Not Need Article 28 Licensing for No-Fault Reimbursement in New York
This 2012 office-based surgery note predates Avanguard's 2016 facility-fee ruling. Read the correction before relying on its historical title.
Feb 3, 2012
120-day rule and Fee Schedule
New York court ruling demonstrates how healthcare providers can lose no-fault claims due to verification failures and fee schedule violations in insurance disputes.
Feb 1, 2020
CPT Code 970309
Acupuncture Approach's 2017 CPT 97039 claim survived summary judgment; its other claims failed for missing verification. Read the distinction.
Sep 21, 2017
It came and I am surprised – but if everything is now done in New Jersey, what’s the long term impact?
GEICO v Avanguard: the 2015 facility-fee ruling was affirmed in 2016. Office-based accreditation, Article 28 status and later New Jersey billing distinguished.
Feb 19, 2015Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What did the Appellate Term rule in Sung Bok Lee v Metropolitan Property?
The court affirmed the judgment dismissing the provider's claim because the insurer could use the chiropractic acupuncture schedule to calculate reimbursement for licensed-acupuncturist services. The reported opinion does not decide a SAPA challenge or describe a ruling by JHO Spodak.
What is SAPA and how does it affect no-fault insurance claims in New York?
SAPA is New York's State Administrative Procedure Act. Its section 102 distinguishes rules from merely explanatory interpretive statements. Sung Bok Lee does not analyze that distinction or set a general standard for judicial deference.
Can a Judicial Hearing Officer override an agency's regulatory interpretation?
Sung Bok Lee does not answer that general question. Its reported holding concerns acupuncture reimbursement. A challenge to a particular agency interpretation needs the actual rule, interpretation and governing judicial authority.
How does administrative deference affect Long Island personal injury cases?
This opinion supplies no general answer about administrative deference in personal injury cases. It concerns an assigned no-fault acupuncture claim under an older fee framework, not damages in an accident lawsuit.
Was 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.
