Key Takeaway
Long Island no-fault attorney discusses G0283 billing code replacing 97032 electrical stimulation and the need for prima facie burden of proof in fee schedule defenses.
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.
Today was my first encounter with this G0283. I was thinking R2D2 at first and a rerun of Star Wars. I am embarrassed that I have not seen this code before. Perhaps I saw it subconsciously and chose to ignore it hoping it would go away. Well, denial is never the answer.
I have seen 20553 (since losing its BR status) turn into 64999 and we have all seen many 97013 codes turn into 97799 codes. Surface EMG’s became 95999 (occasionally). The list goes on. But G0283 came out of nowhere to replace 97032 (electrical stimulation) and to conceptually beat the 8 unit rule absent a coding review. Very sneaky.
This creative billing is making me seriously think that the courts and arbitrators should read 65-3.8(g)(ii) to force an Applicant to prove merits of its billing as a prima facie burden. I took the reluctant view that this regulation was limited to overturn Encare and Westchester v. American Transit involving the precludability of a fee schedule defense. But in light of a lot of the creative fee coding that I see going on, it just might make sense to make a provider present prima facie evidence explaining why G0283 (or any by report code) should not be evaluated at 97032, or why the “needling” of 97799 should not be a 20553 code. The by-report code technically puts the burden on the provider to demonstrate its veracity; however, the courts have swept this feature of the the fee schedule under the rug under the “proof and amount of claim” formulation that has been the law since 2003.
Proving a negative is the story of New York no-fault. But perhaps it is time to modernize the law as it relates to the fee schedule issue. “Proof and amount of claim” should really require proof that the provider prove the billing is accurate. If you walk into a forthright arbitration in NJ or a County Court in Florida on a no-fault claim and argue otherwise, your case will end quite quickly.
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.
Why is the Empire State so different?
Related Articles
- Understanding Medical Billing and Down-Coding in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims
- Fee Schedule Defense Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases
- First application of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(g)(1)(ii)
- Fee schedule defense – competent evidence?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault fee schedules and reimbursement rates have undergone multiple revisions, including updates to regulation 65-3.8 and associated billing code interpretations. Practitioners should verify current fee schedule provisions, billing code definitions, and procedural requirements, as the specific codes and regulatory interpretations discussed may have been substantially modified.
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
NY court rules simple addition insufficient to prove proper fee schedule calculations in no-fault insurance case, requiring detailed evidence of code utilization.
May 22, 2021
Claims representative’s attestation is sufficient to make a prima facie showing
Court ruling establishes that a claims representative's affidavit explaining fee calculations using relative values and conversion factors creates sufficient prima facie evidence.
Oct 27, 2016
More acupuncture from the First Department
First Department ruling on acupuncture fee schedule disputes in no-fault cases, highlighting importance of proper billing rates and timely denial procedures.
Nov 26, 2013
A chiropactor may bill for manipulation under anethesia services – but you knew that already
Civil Court ruling confirms chiropractors can bill for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) services in no-fault insurance claims with specific rate limitations.
Aug 6, 2010
A 65-3.2 sighting
Village Medical Supply case shows insurance carriers can use 11 NYCRR 65-3.2(c) to defend verification requests, marking a shift in no-fault insurance litigation strategy.
Sep 29, 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.
