Key Takeaway
Liberty Chiropractic's eight-unit defense failed on conversion-factor proof and documents showing three units. What the 2016 court left undecided.
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.
Historical note: Liberty Chiropractic (2016) rejected this insurer’s proof; it did not decide a general chiropractic-manipulation exception to a daily-unit limit.
Last reviewed: September 2026
The eight-unit defense in Liberty Chiropractic failed before the court needed to resolve a broad rule about chiropractic manipulation. The insurer had not proved its conversion factor, and its documents showed three units billed by another provider—not eight.
The proof missing from this motion
In Liberty Chiropractic v. 21st Century (2016), the Appellate Term reversed the insurer’s summary judgment and denied its motion. The documents offered to show prior payment of eight physical-medicine units lacked authentication, foundation and explanation. Even taken at face value, they did not show the eight billed units the defense assumed.
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.
A daily-unit limit does not prove that the limit was reached on a particular date. The service codes, units and records of the asserted prior payment must match the argument. The court did not decide Jason’s question about chiropractic manipulative treatment, or prescribe testimony from the particular employee who processed every payment. Those questions remained outside the holding.
For the related code-selection problem, compare Jodi Jacobs’s surviving fee claim. Correct arithmetic cannot resolve an unproved billing premise.
Jason’s historical commentary
Jason left these questions open in 2016. The opinion does not resolve them or establish an exception for chiropractic manipulative treatment:
This was one is interesting and necessitates some discussion. Has the Court agreed that a chiropractor is limited to 8 units, even when CMT is performed? Unsure. What authentication is necessary to prove the other 8 units? Discussion in the affidavit that we received billings from other provider and paid 8 units per diem? Does the Court require proof that the others units were actually paid? Unsure, but probably yes.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Fee-schedule defense hub: cases, proof and later developments
- New Wave: the older acupuncture rate and the motion result
- Jodi Jacobs: proof of code selection
- St. Vincent: separate the fee issue from verification
- OS Tigris: competent evidence of an excessive fee
- Down-coding: the rule and evidence for a reduction
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.
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
Fee schedule defense not preserved abesent a timely denial
Court ruling demonstrates that insurance companies must timely deny claims to preserve fee schedule defenses in New York no-fault litigation.
Aug 11, 2011
Fee schedule is not precluded/ New Jersey FS discussion
Excel Surgery v Metropolitan: a 2015 New Jersey treatment bill, coder proof and why the 2018 out-of-state amendment changes the current comparison.
Nov 24, 2019
C.f. 20553
Renelique v Allstate: the 2017 CPT 20553 fee-proof ruling, the unpreserved 99203 argument and the limits of its comparison to Alleviation.
Sep 21, 2017
New Jersey fee schedule is proper as a matter of law
Surgicare's 2014 New Jersey fee ruling was affirmed in 2015. The later 2018 regulation adds a payment comparison that the historical title does not capture.
Nov 26, 2014Was 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.
