Key Takeaway
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
This article is part of our ongoing fee schedule coverage, with 266 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: Jodi Jacobs (2021) left the fee balance unresolved while dismissing four other claims. It is a proof ruling, not a provider recovery or a universal expert-witness requirement.
Last reviewed: September 2026
Jodi Jacobs v. Global Liberty was a mixed result on the insurer’s appeal. The insurer won dismissal of four claims, but not the unpaid balance challenged on fee-schedule grounds. It failed to prove that it had used the right codes. The court did not question the arithmetic itself.
One fee claim survived; four other claims did not
The 2021 Appellate Term opinion granted the insurer dismissal of three claims based on IME nonappearances and a fourth based on nonreceipt. The Civil Court had denied the insurer’s cross motion; the provider was not appealing an adverse fee dismissal.
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.
For the remaining fee balance, the insurer failed to establish proper use of the schedule’s codes for the services rendered June 1–13, 2016. The discovery direction concerning that claim remained. Denial of that branch of the insurer’s motion did not award the provider the disputed balance.
The practical distinction is between the calculation and its inputs. Identify the service, code and rule supporting a reduction before relying on the resulting arithmetic. The opinion did not impose a universal requirement to hire a billing expert. Liberty Chiropractic’s three-versus-eight-unit mismatch illustrates a related failure to support a fee premise.
Jason’s historical commentary
Jason’s two personal observations are retained in their original order. The second describes his own view of training opportunities, not a finding about litigation risk:
Since when was taking out the abacus insufficient to prove that you properly added and multiplied?
The one good think about no-fault is the stakes are relatively low, so I can give attorneys who want the experience an opportunity to draft an appeal or to try a case.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Fee-schedule defense hub: cases, proof and later developments
- Liberty Chiropractic: three billed units are not eight
- New Wave: rate authority is not an automatic judgment
- Pavlova: separate motions, separate proof
- 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.
266 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
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
Acupuncture Fee Schedule Reversal: Oriental World Acupuncture v GEICO
Oriental World reversed a provider's summary judgment in 2012. What Great Wall decided, who appealed, and why the Aloi sanctions comparison needs care.
Jun 18, 2012
The NF-2
Colin v Global Liberty: IME notices matched the NF-2 and NF-3. A different police-report ZIP code did not defeat the insurer's proof on this record.
Sep 25, 2020
Judicial Notice has it outter limits
Court limits on judicial notice in no-fault insurance cases - workers' compensation fee schedule requires proper foundation and notice under CPLR 4511
Feb 20, 2017
Fee schedule vendor properly substituted for a claims rep. affidavit
Healing Art v Amica accepted a vendor's fee calculation and separate mailing proof. The opinion did not find that chiropractors performed the treatments.
Feb 11, 2015Was 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.
