Key Takeaway
W.H.O. Acupuncture's 2011 fee ruling also addressed an amended award and judgment preparation. Separate the opinion from the archive's commentary.
This article is part of our ongoing fee schedule coverage, with 121 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.
W.H.O. Acupuncture resolved a fee dispute and explained why changing the award’s amount did not dispose of the appeal. It did not rule on the constitutional-notice issue discussed in Jason’s commentary.
Historical note: The 2011 rate comparison predates the later acupuncture schedule adoption; today’s CCA § 1401 remains the starting point for who prepares a Civil Court judgment.
Last reviewed: September 2026. Original publication date retained.
Three issues, with different sources
W.H.O. Acupuncture v GEICO, 2011 NY Slip Op 51408(U) reversed the provider’s judgment and granted the insurer’s cross motion under the older acupuncture-rate framework. The later order had changed the amount, not the liability determination being appealed; the court treated the appeal as taken from the judgment.
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 court also criticized the clerk’s preparation and entry of judgment without notice. For present practice, read CCA § 1401: it assigns preparation to the successful party’s attorney, provides for unrepresented parties and contains separate provisions after thirty days and in possession proceedings.
The opinion did not adjudicate a constitutional challenge or establish an all-purpose rule about service of every judgment. Jason’s broader observations below should remain tied to the period and procedural question that prompted them.
Historical commentary from the archive
The historical commentary below includes observations about constitutional notice and court practice that this opinion did not adjudicate. The named officeholder and clerk references are period-specific, not present-day instructions:
Three statements of law.
One you knew – unless you are (1) arguing that the acupuncture fee schedule is unconstitutional, and (2) failing to inform Schneiderman’s office in violation of the Executive Law that you are challenging the constitutionality of a statute or regulation. Seriously – and you know who you are – stop already.
The second one is interesting because an appeal of an order finding liability constitutes an appealable paper notwithstanding a subsequent order that modifies the awarded damages.
Last – a judgment should not be prepared by the clerk and should be served on the adversary. I know there is case law out there refuting the latter point – I need to find it. As to the former point – someone should call chief clerk Baer since the Civil Courts, as a matter of course, have been preparing judgments in all cases for about 4-5 years already.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Fee-schedule defense hub: cases, proof and later developments
- Forrest Chen: comparison rates and the unpreserved argument
- Flushing Traditional: an unresolved initial-evaluation claim
- 2 & 9 Acupuncture: the unresolved 97026 and 97016 claims
- Acupuncture Approach: 97039 survived, other claims did not
For review of a particular no-fault billing dispute, contact our office.
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.
121 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
CPT Code 97026
New Age v 21st Century: why the insurer failed to win summary judgment on CPT 97026, without establishing the provider's right to payment.
May 13, 2016
It looks like someone did not include the fee schedule as an exhibit in their acupuncture motion
Insurance companies must properly submit fee schedules as evidence when denying acupuncture claims, or risk having their payment denials overturned by courts.
Apr 1, 2013
NY Acupuncture Prima Facie Defense: Chiropractor Rate Limitations Upheld
Great Wall's November 2009 trial ruling: the stipulated proof, the historical chiropractor schedule and why the result is not a universal rate cap.
Nov 19, 2009
CPM from the Civil Court
Civil Court ruling supports CPM reimbursement claims by medical providers, creating significant implications for no-fault insurance reimbursement rates and regulatory oversight.
Jan 18, 2018Was 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.
